Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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

#204522 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204523 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is dishonesty when you accuse people of saying something they did not say, like you do. It is a lie.
Right now you are attempting to imply I believe procreation is a requirement of marriage. You are lying. You know I never said that. And you know that is not my position.
You stop bringing up procreation as a reason to defend your homophobic friends and I will stop calling you on it
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204524 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to catch up, it is also between same sex couples, legally recognized on the state and federal level, as legal a marriage as yours or mine.
"As legal a marriage as yours or mine"? Ya don't say. So the state has the same expectations of a same sex marriage as it does an opposite sex marriage, the same presumptions? It makes the same pronouncement, as in "By the power vested in me by the state, I now pronounce you husband and wife"?
Procreation is not a requirement
Sexual behavior is not a requirement
True
True
Type of sex acts are not specified
etc
Ahhhhhh.....therein lies the distinction, pun intended. As we already discussed, same sex couples, cannot, according to the legal definition in that state, "consumate" their marriage by the first act of sexual intercourse, also know as colitis. Thanks for playing though. But don't worry, u won't go home empty handed, we have a collectors set of "Big D" action figures.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204526 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You stop bringing up procreation as a reason to defend your homophobic friends and I will stop calling you on it
None of Frankie's friends fear homogenized milk, skim milk maybe....but definitely not homogenized.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204528 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isn’t now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204529 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204530 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204531 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
Read it again big dummy. Where did I say it ever was?

Why would you want to require something you need to protect from?

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204533 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?
You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.
You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.
<quoted text>
Man up VV.
You are running from a lie. Face it, and then we can talk about meeting.
However, I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form. The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
Have you ever been in love with someone who is the same gender? Have you ever developed a deep and intimate relationship with another man? How do you know anything about the depth of a same-gender relationship?

I don't pretend to know about your relationship. I "assume" that it's very similar to what other people experience in their long-term relationships. There are no different or unique dynamics.

Two people who love one another to a degree that they wish to spend eternity with one another; that's no different than if it's composed of same or opposite genders.

You don't get to tell other people what their truths are. You don't get to live in someone else's skin. You may think you know, but unless you're psychic, you're not going to know how people feel about the person they are with.

The bottom line is that people who are in same-gender relationships are satisfied. They are deeply satisfied. And that's all that counts.

If they are happy in the relationship that they are in, who are you to determine whether or not it meets your criteria for being authentic?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204535 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
<quoted text>
Read it again big dummy. Where did I say it ever was?
Why would you want to require something you need to protect from?
Dumb, dumb, dumb...
You said--and these are your exact words--"marriage is mating behavior".

All we are saying is that sometimes marriage involves mating behavior and sometimes it doesn't. And mating behavior is not required for marriage.

Finally, not all gays need protection in order to have sex. There are many different types of sexual behavior that does not require protection. Also, after a married couple knows there status--whether they are gay or straight--protection is not needed.

If a straight man married a straight woman who has HPV, genital warts, HIV, or herpes; then he would need to use protection in order to have intercourse with her. So, heterosexual couples must also sometimes use protection to HAVE sex.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204536 Jul 24, 2013
Kimare...

Is this an example of the unique relationship that only male and female couples can have?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204537 Jul 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever been in love with someone who is the same gender? Have you ever developed a deep and intimate relationship with another man? How do you know anything about the depth of a same-gender relationship?
I don't pretend to know about your relationship. I "assume" that it's very similar to what other people experience in their long-term relationships. There are no different or unique dynamics.
Two people who love one another to a degree that they wish to spend eternity with one another; that's no different than if it's composed of same or opposite genders.
You don't get to tell other people what their truths are. You don't get to live in someone else's skin. You may think you know, but unless you're psychic, you're not going to know how people feel about the person they are with.
The bottom line is that people who are in same-gender relationships are satisfied. They are deeply satisfied. And that's all that counts.
If they are happy in the relationship that they are in, who are you to determine whether or not it meets your criteria for being authentic?
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.

I simply and accurately noted the reality of a core distinction between ss couples and marriage.

That has NOTHING to do with your statements above.

NOTHING you said changes the reality of what I wrote.

I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.

A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form.

The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.

It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.

You need to address the points I made, and not change the subject. Perhaps you need to just admit that these points ARE a profound difference between ss couples and marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204538 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said--and these are your exact words--"marriage is mating behavior".
All we are saying is that sometimes marriage involves mating behavior and sometimes it doesn't. And mating behavior is not required for marriage.
Finally, not all gays need protection in order to have sex. There are many different types of sexual behavior that does not require protection. Also, after a married couple knows there status--whether they are gay or straight--protection is not needed.
If a straight man married a straight woman who has HPV, genital warts, HIV, or herpes; then he would need to use protection in order to have intercourse with her. So, heterosexual couples must also sometimes use protection to HAVE sex.
1. Your partial quote is meaningless without context.

Mating behavior is at the root of the marriage constraint. That is a simple social science fact. Sexual attraction is rooted in mating behavior.

2. Nowhere have I ever said all gays need to have protection to have sex. I am saying that the identifying sexual practice of gays does require protection to be marginally safe.

3. Anal sex always needs protection, even within a faithful relationship. Natural sex within a marriage where neither the man or woman has ever had any other partners NEVER needs protection.
bmw annie

Sonoma, CA

#204539 Jul 24, 2013
what we need said the congressman is for the minimum wage to disappear as it causes businesses to fail and/or not start. he is willing to compromise and says that if we absolutely must have this socialist stain on our books then let it be at the proven real amount that folks can get by on as long as they dont hoard their money. he says that studies have shown that when the wage was $2.25 an hour, why everyone was happier then and what we have now is a time when everyone is not happy so lets go back to the tried and true and get the wage to a stable $2.25 an hour, with no union meddling and no insane benefits for hobo bums who just want free stuff, then everyone can be happy again. We have to trust the party to have studied this and come to a conclusion that will benefit us all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204540 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Fine lets the polygamist marry. When you find that 12 year old girls are being forced into marriage, DO NOT flucking come crying about it. YOU want it you got it. Clueless moron.
Hellllooooooo....."Sister Wives".'nuff said.
Pezz

Monrovia, CA

#204541 Jul 24, 2013
The pezz dispenser is temporality out of business.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204542 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki cut and paste. Priceless.
Snarky comment. Worthless.
Zapata

Los Angeles, CA

#204543 Jul 24, 2013
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204544 Jul 24, 2013
Over the Sholder wrote:
July 2013 the latest cup report is the average bra size rises to 34DD.
That is simply related to higher rates of obesity.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204545 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.
I simply and accurately noted the reality of a core distinction between ss couples and marriage.
That has NOTHING to do with your statements above.
NOTHING you said changes the reality of what I wrote.
I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form.
The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
You need to address the points I made, and not change the subject. Perhaps you need to just admit that these points ARE a profound difference between ss couples and marriage.
Every relationship is different in some way than any other relationship. So what? Is that your only point? Or does different equate to better/worse?

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.

Westwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News People confirms Bruce Jenner 'transitioning int... May 6 actually 38
News Despite bans, Selfie Stick alive and well Apr '15 Alice Pattinson 1
News Carlton Gebbia implies Kyle Richards doesn't se... (Mar '14) Mar '15 Frank Lee 3
News Venice Shooting: Adam Pacheco, 31. (Oct '08) Mar '15 whynot1645 22
News 10 Best Pizza Restaurants in Los Angeles Feb '15 William Walker 1
News Avoid these high-traffic areas while President ... (Oct '14) Oct '14 ObamaInLAToGrabLand 1
News Magnitude-4.4 quake rattles Southern California (Mar '14) Mar '14 El Guapo 9
More from around the web

Westwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]