Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#183345 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It works both ways. Not everyone is a secular saint on the other side.
In what way are same sex couples trampling the happiness of others? Unless...these others happiness is derived from denying happiness to other people?

It doesnít matter which way you look at it does it?

One side is trying to deny happiness to others, while the other side is just trying to find their own happiness with no effect on anyone else.

There are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now, didnít hurt me, or my marriage to my wife in any way at all, no one has ever explained what harm it has done to anyone, not to me, and certainly not in court.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#183346 Mar 14, 2013
Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage. Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage anymore than requiring people to eat only what they shoot would be a requirement for a hunting license.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#183347 Mar 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
The Taliban has an opening for you, you would like it there. Religion is mandated, anyone not conforming to social norms is not tolerated and harshly punished.
Pietro Armando wrote about procreation and marriage, not about religion.

.
Big D wrote:
Just your style I prefer the land of the free, where equality and justice is more important, but that is just me.
Equality isn't the same as freedom, any law that enforces equality restricts someone's freedom. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#183348 Mar 14, 2013
Texas Senator files bill to legalize civil unions

http://dailytexanonline.com/blogs/the-update/...

Same sex couples would have access to many of the benefits and legal protections afforded to heterosexual married couples if a bill and several resolutions filed in the Texas Legislature gain approval.

The bill, filed by state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, would partially repeal the Texas Defense of Marriage Act of 2003, which prevents Texas from recognizing same sex unions.

In a statement, Hinojosa cited a 2012 public opinion poll conducted by UT and The Texas Tribune showing that a majority of Texas voters favored some legal recognition of same-sex couples.

"Texans are now realizing the importance of providing same-gender couples the same protections that married couples receive," Hinojosa said.

The bill would provide same sex couples certain legal protections including property rights, adoption rights and worker compensation benefits.

One of the three constitutional amendments proposed last week by state Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, or state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, must pass in both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote and then approved by Texas voters in order for Hinojosaís bill to take effect in 2014.

The proposed constitutional amendment would repeal the 2005 Texas Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibits recognition of civil unions.

Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, an organization that lobbies for gay and transgender rights, said in a statement that Hinojosaís legislation is the first step on a path toward recognizing rights for same-sex couples in Texas.

"We believe that every Texas family should be able to take care of those they love," Smith said.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183349 Mar 14, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The government could even wait until the couple produces a child. People who feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage could have a religious ceremony before having sex.
<quoted text>
You won't get an answer. Well, maybe that stupid apple/walnut tree analogy.
Oh maybe the government could say, "marriage is the union of husband and wife". That's it. Simple right? It covers it all. Men, women, sex, consummation, procreation, conception, presumption of paternity, etc. Both sexes involved.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#183350 Mar 14, 2013
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?

Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183351 Mar 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way are same sex couples trampling the happiness of others? Unless...these others happiness is derived from denying happiness to other people?
It doesnít matter which way you look at it does it?
One side is trying to deny happiness to others, while the other side is just trying to find their own happiness with no effect on anyone else.
There are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now, didnít hurt me, or my marriage to my wife in any way at all, no one has ever explained what harm it has done to anyone, not to me, and certainly not in court.
My answer was in response to:
Big D wrote:
Oh no, that perfectly describes religious types, they do evil and donít care, they hurt others without any remorse and they donít think the law or any morality or decency of this country of justice, equality and freedom apply to them, or to their efforts to trample on the happiness of others different from themselves.
It fits them perfectly.
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tempe, AZ

#183352 Mar 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.
There are over 1,000 rights that legally married couples enjoy that are NOT afforded to civil unions!What you're saying therefore is that gays are not good enough to have a fully legal marriage like there is now in 10 states by the way! Just love your bumper sticker posts! Hilarious,thanks for the laughs! Next!
Forkedya

Covina, CA

#183353 Mar 14, 2013
Roll On, it's going to be fun.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183354 Mar 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage. Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage anymore than requiring people to eat only what they shoot would be a requirement for a hunting license.
Damn, you are dumb.
Look, procreation just isn't a requirement for marriage. Period.
And it's not a benefit of marriage. You don't have to be married to procreate.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183355 Mar 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.
LOL! Just admit you are a bigot!
Why do you homophobes talk about "taxpayers" as if gay people don't pay taxes?
And government intruding into marriage? Too late, stupid!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183357 Mar 14, 2013
Hey, Brian_G, what about this idea? The government will only recognize a marriage after the couple spawns. After all, you say "Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage."
If the couple has an irrational belief that sex before marriage is wrong, they can get some sort of religious marriage that has no legal status, come on G, what do you say?

Since: Feb 13

San Jose, CA

#183358 Mar 14, 2013
In the judgment of the measures unconstitutional. Appeal process will begin, for the first time in 9 federal circuit court and then, if they decide to hear the case, the Supreme Court of the United States. this case, a vote was trying to define marriage. The voters passed the measures by 52% thinner.Now, not be decided at the Ballot box or on these forums. The Judges will decide it and we will Abide.http://iosvn.vn http://www.seoitc.com
Burnece

Chesapeake, OH

#183359 Mar 14, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Hey, Brian_G, what about this idea? The government will only recognize a marriage after the couple spawns. After all, you say "Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage."
If the couple has an irrational belief that sex before marriage is wrong, they can get some sort of religious marriage that has no legal status, come on G, what do you say?
Wow, you're one nasty a.ss queer.
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tempe, AZ

#183360 Mar 14, 2013
vanphammanh wrote:
In the judgment of the measures unconstitutional. Appeal process will begin, for the first time in 9 federal circuit court and then, if they decide to hear the case, the Supreme Court of the United States. this case, a vote was trying to define marriage. The voters passed the measures by 52% thinner.Now, not be decided at the Ballot box or on these forums. The Judges will decide it and we will Abide.http://iosvn.vn http://www.seoitc.com
And the Supreme court has in fact taken up this case and will make their final decision come this June! I personally believe they will rule on the side of equality,and also strike down DOMA as Unconstitutional! It's the Constitutional thing to do and the right thing to do! So,yes we shall see!
Randy-Rock-Hudso n

Westland, MI

#183361 Mar 14, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF are you going on about, Bigfoot? Socialism?
So, you have a hard time remembering your posts, eh?

"
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Con dumb parroting. You don't even know what socialism is! Why are you against the Constitution and equal rights?"

I believe that you were trying, yet again, to sound superior to someone....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183367 Mar 15, 2013
Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:
<quoted text>
There are over 1,000 rights that legally married couples enjoy that are NOT afforded to civil unions!What you're saying therefore is that gays are not good enough to have a fully legal marriage like there is now in 10 states by the way! Just love your bumper sticker posts! Hilarious,thanks for the laughs! Next!
Gays are good enough to marry just like everyone else. What makes you so special? Bumper sticker post? This from the crowd that puts rainbow bumper stickers on their cars.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183368 Mar 15, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, you are dumb.
Look, procreation just isn't a requirement for marriage. Period.
And it's not a benefit of marriage. You don't have to be married to procreate.
Damn you are dumb. Procreation is the reason marriage exists in the first place. There are TWO sexes, they have sex, the coital intercourse kind, and presto change o, a baby, or babies are made. Even one's named Rosie No Ho. Even babies who turn out gay are made this way. Hey that rhymes.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183369 Mar 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.
It is again.
You make my case;
By your own stats, as child bearing declines, so does marriage. A clear and undeniable correlation that as you put it, even a fool should be able to see...
Then you make the silly assertion that child bearing 'should be included on the marriage license'. Ignoring the fact that some states still require blood tests because to the potential, why would they? If children need government permission, why not sex? What about eating together? Using the same bathroom??? Your gay twirl is sooooo silly...
Just a note, divorces do rise after children are adults. Moreover, the argument for no-fault divorce was that 'staying together for the children' was not a good reason. What happened? Divorce skyrocketed and social health of children plummeted. You should know this as a 'social worker'...
The government has to have a prevailing reason to determine who can marry. There is one for the fundamental building block of society; families. There is none for discriminatory support of some friendships between a arbitrary number of people.
Bazinga!
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.
Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.
These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.
If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.
Is that a step you're willing to take?
I never denied any of what you 'clearly stated'. I pointed out how YOUR comparison made MY point. Now you try to divert from that silly mistake.

Nor did I say procreation is the 'only' reason for marriage. I said it is the fundamental purpose of marriage. At it's most basic essence, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

You didn't use my analogy to draw your 'conclusion', in fact, you are afraid to face it. Moreover, you ignore this fact; Marriage has included childless couples because they are an rare exception. Children are a part of marriage 96% of the time historically. Gay couples can NEVER procreate as a couple.

Here is the honest bottom line. If you pretend gay couples are married, you have dumbed down marriage to a friendship for two people. That is discriminatory to both number of participants and types of friendships.

Is that a step YOU are willing to take?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183370 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I would take it a step further, procreation has never ever been mandatory or even implied as a reason for marriage, there are millions upon millions of marriages that cannot or choose not to have children.
That is a choice, not any kind qualification for marriage.
The number of childless couples is most often NOT a 'choice'. Historically 96% of couples have children. The occasion of childlessness has been so rare in marriage, and the likelihood of children so prevalent, governments have found no need to 'require' children. In fact, the idea of such a requirement is silly.

In the case of homosexual couples, procreation in their relationship is zero (0).

This may be a hard question for you, but if marriage should require children, shouldn't it also require sex?

Smirk.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Los Alamos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Rainbow's End Jewelry (Feb '11) Sun RobfmCalif 16
News Neverland no more: All references to the King o... (Jul '15) Jun 11 usuxmiidick 11
Best MILF \ cougar dating sites Santa Maria Jun 8 Hamuerl 1
Hook up (Nov '17) Jun 8 Hamuerl 5
News Ilan Funke-Bilu to run for judge (Dec '17) Mar '18 Yes 7
News Santa Maria City Council Creates Priority Lists... Mar '18 Share 5
News Chumash Tribe's Gift Jump Starts Campaign to Re... Mar '18 Zandra 1

Los Alamos Jobs

Personal Finance

Los Alamos Mortgages