Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
160,101 - 160,120 of 200,601 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183402
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
Big D
Grounds for divorce:
A decree of divorce based upon the fault of one of the parties may be granted in Alaska for any of the following grounds:
Failure to consummate the marriage.
Adultery.
Conviction of a felony.
Willful desertion for a period of one year.
Cruel and inhuman treatment.
Personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
Incompatibility of temperament.
Habitual drunkenness or addiction to drugs.
Incurable mental illness.[Based on Alaska Statutes 25.24.050]
By the way, those are reasons why someone that WANTS a divorce can get one.

But you are trying to use this argument as a way to NOT allow people to marry in the first place.

Are you saying that I can FORCE someone else in Alaska to have a divorce when neither party wants a divorce for one those reasons? Or keep someone from getting married ( as you so desperately are trying to do ) for any of those reasons? That in Alaska I can knock on someone’s door with evidence and force them against their will to have a divorce?

I will give you a hint... the answer is no

so far, you have produced squat as a reason for not allowing people to marry who both want to.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183404
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's very nice of you. Perhaps judges, and legislatures, should consult you before making any descions or passing any laws to see if it would offend you or not. As to your statement, why stop there. Are you offended by plural marriages, first cousins marrying, siblings, etc.? As long as you're not offended, there's no reason to ban such marriages.
<quoted text>
Some might even be a bit crooked. Do you tell your children that they're "too many"?
They do consult me :)

I talk to my representatives, they know where I stand.

My children agree that the world has far too many people, that is why they are limiting the number they have as well.

That is just responsibility, probably not something you teach your children.

I am not offended by plural marriages, I am offended at the way some groups use plural marriage as an excuse to commit other crimes. But that is not the subject here.

Are you taking Frankie’s position, I don’t expect you to marry your Goat without mutual consent.

I am glad you are giving up the procreation argument, that is a lost cause, already failed in court and you will fare no better with it here.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183405
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Wring is in the air wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an institution that developed to bring straight couples together so they can then be intimate and bear offspring not out of wedlock. With partners who make a lifelong commitment to them and their potential offspring. Having young girls going around making babies without a male partner for financial and moral support is chaos. Just look at the inner ditties where up to 70% of the children born with in the minority communities are born out of wedlock, then end up on government support. Marriage did not come out of existence for same sex people to get together for life. There would be no need for this commitment.
And they gay movement to have marriage arouse so that their partners could be claimed on their medical insurance and such. It had nothing to do with love but a need to be able to get medical treatments and benefits.
The fact is gay partnership is not the same as straight partnership. Couple get married yes because they are in love, but straight couples are getting basically a certificate to bear children without being labeled illegitimate. There is no need for such a certificate or licensee for gay couples and there never will be. Straight couple don't want to be accused of living together in sin, meaning having sex without the consent of parents or their church, in case the woman was to get pregnant then have an illegitimate child out of wedlock.
A gay couple can never bear children of their partners DNA. They may bear illegitimate children, but a marriage license with their gay partner will never fix that status married or not. Fact is that a child will be the biological child of a person they did not marry! Even adoption by a second husband of a straight couple will not make a child legitimate if that child's mother was not married to the biological father.
Gays can adopt, and they can marry, but all that gets them is a piece of paper, it does not help their child to establish legitimacy only the biological parents marriage before they were conceived can do that. This is why marriage ceremonies and traditions came to be. It has nothing to do with gays and their wanting legal avenues to benefits given to married straight couples. It's the insurance policies they need to change not the marriage institution.
ALL marriages are a piece of paper recognized by a government forma legal standpoint.

Many cultures have many traditions, I don’t mind if you have yours, as long as you don’t try to stop others with theirs, and as long as you don’t try to force your traditions upon others that don’t want them as if they had the force of law.

This is the land of the free, I won’t accept your tynary

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183406
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.
Grazie

[QUOTE[
However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.
[/QUOTE]

That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.
So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.
[QUOTE]

They are not denied, rather granted in a different manner.

[QUOTE[
The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:
--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.
--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183407
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
<quoted text>
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
<quoted text>
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
<quoted text>
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
Children or the intention to have children also has no bearing as a legal requirement to be married.

Religion has no bearing

Tradition has no bearing

History has no bearing on the right to marry

none of those things can be used by law to deny someone the right to marry
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183408
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
<quoted text>
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
<quoted text>
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
<quoted text>
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
NOT have them designated, they already are, there are 18,000 legal same sex marriages in California right now, there are over 100,000 same sex marriages nationwide.

You are trying to stop other same sex couples from the same legal right that other same sex couples already have.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183409
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/...

But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183410
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/11/30/...

But Jones went further in his ruling, saying Nevada had a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as it did.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

It is "conceivable," he wrote, that if gay marriage is legalized, "a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of- wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences."

Jones added, "Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183411
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote."The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183412
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ culture/family/item/12416-fede ral-judge-upholds-traditional- marriage-in-hawaii
But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;
In history Christians were murdered for fun and entertainment,

In history black people here were slaves

For a majority of our history women were denied the vote

Just because something was true a long time ago, doesn’t mean it should still be that way.

There is no link between the legal right to marry and procreation, I don’t care of you say it or some politician says it, it is still dead wrong.

You cannot force people to have children, you cannot deny people the right to marry based on if they can have children, the law does not automatically break apart any marriages based upon if they had children or not.

We have been over this already, it already failed in court and you have already failed here. Procreation is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get or be married.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183413
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote."The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
No one is saying you cannot have kids if you want to, but I am not about to let you force people to have children in order to be married, or to get married.

We will not tolerate your desire to be a tyrant
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183414
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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?
Ummm, Actually, yes, that is exactly what they think, and due to infiltration of the seats of power, they are making it happen...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183415
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not trying to force anyone, you are NOT required to be involved in a same sex marriage.
Why are you trying to force others not too is the question. I don’t care if you believe in my view of the world or not, I am not trying to force you to change anything, I am trying to get you to stop forcing others to your view
You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, as long as you don’t try to force that belief upon someone else.
I will return the favor, I will make sure no other religion forces its views upon you or your children either.
But, D, we are not forcing our views upon you, we are telling you that your ideas do not fit the mold. Your side is forcing its views upon the rest of us, and forcing us, the majority of taxpayers, to witness the diversion of our majority of funds, to go toward supporting an already stipulated minority.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183416
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In history Christians were murdered for fun and entertainment,
In history black people here were slaves
For a majority of our history women were denied the vote
Just because something was true a long time ago, doesn’t mean it should still be that way.
There is no link between the legal right to marry and procreation, I don’t care of you say it or some politician says it, it is still dead wrong.
You cannot force people to have children, you cannot deny people the right to marry based on if they can have children, the law does not automatically break apart any marriages based upon if they had children or not.
We have been over this already, it already failed in court and you have already failed here. Procreation is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get or be married.
Hellooooooooo McFly....those are two courts linking marriage and procreation.....I thought the all powerful Wizard of Big D said it was a dead horse in the courts. Oh nooooo.....didn't those judges get the memo? Perhaps they were too tired to climb up the mountain to seek your wisdom, as you sit on your lofty perch awaiting all who seek your guidance.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183417
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
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...(snip
Whatever, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
No amount of babble changes that fact.
Do you consider yourself human?
If so, why?
:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183418
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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).[QUOTE]

So what? You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
No amount of twisting and turning will change that fact.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]
This may be a hard question for you, but if marriage should require children, shouldn't it also require sex?
Smirk.
This may be a hard question for you, but do you consider yourself human? If so, why? I looked it up, and humans have 46 chromosomes. How many do you have?
:)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183419
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
I doubt if you posted any facts. All you post is opinion. And your 'opinions' are not based on facts.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183420
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, D, we are not forcing our views upon you, we are telling you that your ideas do not fit the mold. Your side is forcing its views upon the rest of us, and forcing us, the majority of taxpayers, to witness the diversion of our majority of funds, to go toward supporting an already stipulated minority.
Oh puh-leez. Do you always just make shit up and expect people to believe it?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183421
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
But then you argue against gay marriage, and that is saying there is something wrong with homosexuals and homosexuality.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Nobody is talking about getting rid of marriage between a man and a woman, idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
That makes no sense, dummy. You even said gay people can marry now. Intrusive regulation? What could be more intrusive than what the government does now? Basing your rights on your genitalia.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183422
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
Has anyone found a full text of Senator Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC?
Learn how to use a search engine, you dumb b!tch.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••