Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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.

Full Story
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Beacon, NY

#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

Farmington, 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183371 Mar 15, 2013
Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:
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!
No, I never said "gays are not good enough to have a fully legal marriage like there is now in 10 states", those are the words of the poster quoted above, not mine. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

The question isn't about the individual, it has nothing to do with individual goodness. In every state, gays can marry under the same laws as everyone else, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Gays do marry in every state, I believe most of them want their children raised with a mother and father. Many gays support keeping marriage one man and one woman.

My argument was about wasteful government spending, intrusive regulation and higher taxes; same sex marriage is bad because it would bring more of the above.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183372 Mar 15, 2013
Has anyone found a full text of Senator Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC?

"I respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but they have to respect me too," Rubio said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe life Ė all life Ė is worthy of protection at every stage of its development does not make you a chauvinist."

"The people who are actually closed minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science in regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception,"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183373 Mar 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Has anyone found a full text of Senator Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC?
"I respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but they have to respect me too," Rubio said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe life Ė all life Ė is worthy of protection at every stage of its development does not make you a chauvinist."
"The people who are actually closed minded in American politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science in regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception,"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/...
Translation.... Just because you want freedom, equality, and justice, does not mean you should not respect my right to deny you freedom equality and justice.

What a pile of crap
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183374 Mar 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Marriage is not about procreation, never was... this is a dead argument. People are free to marry regardless of if they have the ability or even the desire to have children, that has always been true, not a requirement, never ever was.

That lame argument has already failed in court

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183375 Mar 15, 2013
Marriage provides a marital bed, the appropriate social setting for sex. Then, marriage provides a home for the offspring of those sexual relations with the child's mother and father.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183376 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not about procreation, never was... this is a dead argument.
Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?
People are free to marry regardless of if they have the ability or even the desire to have children, that has always been true, not a requirement, never ever was.
Why in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, would procreation have to be required in order to prove that marriage and procreation are linked? How about this, ".....first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Big D in the baby carriage..." BTW, what form of birth control do SSCs use?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183378 Mar 15, 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.
You don't have two brain cells to rub together, do you?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183380 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?
<quoted text>
Why in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, would procreation have to be required in order to prove that marriage and procreation are linked? How about this, ".....first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Big D in the baby carriage..." BTW, what form of birth control do SSCs use?
Please show me the law, in any state, where a couple is denied the right to marry because they do not intend to have children, or the law where the state ( not either party in the marriage ) decides to invalidate their marriage because they didnít have any children.

I can give you a tip.... no such law exists

Marriage is about a commitment to one another, a contract, a promise to one another. Procreation is not a requirement in this or any country that I am aware of.

If you can find a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.

Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wonít get anywhere with that lame argument here.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183381 Mar 15, 2013
Another conservative republican is shown the light...( by his own son )

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portma...

It is a shame that it has to happen that way, I donít happen to be gay nor any of my children, but I can see right from wrong without that... I wish they could come to the right and decent side of this issue without it having to be from a family member.
MurkieReasearch

Covina, CA

#183382 Mar 15, 2013
Poor OLD, CPAC - shouldn't they get offtheir highhorses?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183383 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not about procreation, never was... this is a dead argument. People are free to marry regardless of if they have the ability or even the desire to have children, that has always been true, not a requirement, never ever was.
That lame argument has already failed in court
That is a common form of reasoning most known as denial, followed by a lie. None of which addresses the facts I posted.

Smirk.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183384 Mar 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a common form of reasoning most known as denial, followed by a lie. None of which addresses the facts I posted.
Smirk.
No You are in denial

Or... show me the law in any state ( or any country for that matter ) that will deny a couple the right to marry if they do not intend to have children, and.. will against their will, dissolve their marriage if they do not have children.

Until you show me that law you are in denial

Procreation was never... EVERÖ.. a requirement for a marriage, not in this country, nor any other that I am aware of.

The lame procreation argument is a dead issue, already soundly defeated in court here in the US

I donít care about your or anyone elseís religion, or your or anyone elseís deities, I donít care about your or anyone elseís traditions, we are Americans, we are free of the tynary of others, all equal in the eyes of the law.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183385 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me the law, in any state, where a couple is denied the right to marry because they do not intend to have children, or the law where the state ( not either party in the marriage ) decides to invalidate their marriage because they didnít have any children.
Please explain how that response logically addresses my post?

Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?

I made no claim regarding the right to marry in that post.
I can give you a tip.... no such law exists
Please link any state body of case law that deals with a same sex marriage, male or female, and recognized, by
law, reasons for same sex divorce, such as failure to consummate the marriage when party has pledged to do so.
Marriage is about a commitment to one another, a contract, a promise to one another. Procreation is not a requirement in this or any country that I am aware of.
Please list any and all countries, where procreation is not part of that country' s collective historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious concept of marriage.
If you can find a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.
Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wonít get anywhere with that lame argument here.
If YOU can find one, I suggest YOU move there. BTW, were your mother and father married?
Jeff

United States

#183386 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation.... Just because you want freedom, equality, and justice, does not mean you should not respect my right to deny you freedom equality and justice.
What a pile of crap
Why is it okay for Liberals to force their views on everyone, and the second someone chooses to believe something different they go on the attack calling the guy a bigot and saying he is full of hate?

Because someone does not believe your view of the world, does not make them full of crap. Liberals are for freedom and equality as long as you believe in what they believe.

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 38 min HughBe 69,531
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 4 hr do it here 16,011
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sep 28 No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep 21 fancy 3
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sep 21 theos 2,275
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Monterey Jobs

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]