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
160,381 - 160,400 of 200,602 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183730
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RicardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.
Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
It's not about "other people's sexuality", but rather what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Legally redefining marriage undermines that. If SSM was an integral part of human societal organization and structure it would have appeared long before now, and would have deep sustained historical roots. It does not. It does demonstrate the extent to which marriage has declined both in the U.S., and in the West.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183731
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

RicardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.
Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
lol..that's why I am registered so you trolls will be exposed. Did I hurt your feelings that much? lol

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183732
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fk the majority of society. The Constitution promises all equal rights. Do you understand that so far? And you morons keep saying it's just about "the benefits and insurance benefits". Well, if that were the case, gay people would just marry a friend of the opposite sex.
No it doesn't. If it did, both native born, and naturalized, citizens would be eligible to run for president. That is one example.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183733
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't answer my question. Do you think reproduction is the ONE and ONLY State interest in marriage?
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
Horse hills

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183734
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Did I mention thatSteve Herfert of West Covina, California city councilman who used offensive RACISTS language live during a Feburary 05, 2013 city council meeting is a life long hardcore GOP, Republican an Tea Party Member.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183735
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
We have a already been over this, you already lost

Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.

There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.

You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Deficiets

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183736
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Sad but true, the GOP, Republican and Tea Party brats are sulking in a dark corner, because the voters nation wide have rejected there racists form of government.

The vast majority of Republican lawmakers have signed a national no-new-taxes pledge and aren't carrying major revenue-raising measures.

What say you West Covian city counciman Steve Herfert and Mike Touhey along witht he SGVtribune.com and George Ogden of the sgvexamainer.com
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183737
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about "other people's sexuality", but rather what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Legally redefining marriage undermines that. If SSM was an integral part of human societal organization and structure it would have appeared long before now, and would have deep sustained historical roots. It does not. It does demonstrate the extent to which marriage has declined both in the U.S., and in the West.
Will you PLEASE learn something about logic. You make statemnts WITHOUT any proof. "...it would have appeared long before now..." is meaningless. If women should have the right to vote, why didn't our country start out that way?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183738
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
You think it is the only reason???? Well ain't it just too bad that YOU don't get to make that determination for the State? There are many other reasons: longer life, better health, reduced crime, and it promotes financial independence. And these SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN benefits occur whether or not there are children involved.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183740
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a already been over this, you already lost
Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
yeah yeah

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183741
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

ok now lets legalize cannabis. nationwide!

chéck one two thréé
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183742
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
<quoted text>
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
<quoted text>
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
I already have kid

No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.

dead argument

Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage

point... set and match... that argument is dead

It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.

But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183743
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have kid
Ya did? I must have blinked.
No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.
dead argument
Silly Big D, you're confusing lack of a requirement with purpose. Its understandable, for you to admit it would undermine your whole argument. So you cling the this notion that as along as procreation is not required, it must not be about procreation.

If procreation is not an issue, why prohibit brother and sister from marrying? Oh I know, beacuse they might have sex, AND, create a child, who grows up, and posts on internet fourms under the moniker of "Big D". Now THAT makes sense.
Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage
point... set and match... that argument is dead
It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.
But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.
Thatta boy, you keep that going, I'm sure all those court cases specifically linking marriage and procreation, are just meaningless to the all great and powerful Big D. It must be lonely up on that mountain....I'm sure there's the occasionally sheep that happens along to keep you company.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183744
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

And before you try to respond, we are not talking about reasons for a divorce, you can get a divorce for no reason at all ( irreconcilable differences ) all it takes is for one party to want a divorce and it can be over eating crackers in bed.

we are talking about the denial of a marriage license to a couple that both want one.

Intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a pre-requisite for them to obtain a marriage license. You won’t be able to find a single case where the state denied the license based on their intent or ability to have children.

It is a dead argument
Deficiets

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183745
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Did I mention that Steve Herfert of West Covina, California city councilman who used offensive RACISTS language live during a Feburary 05, 2013 city council meeting and is a life long hardcore GOP, Republican an Tea Party Member.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183746
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya did? I must have blinked.
<quoted text>
Silly Big D, you're confusing lack of a requirement with purpose. Its understandable, for you to admit it would undermine your whole argument. So you cling the this notion that as along as procreation is not required, it must not be about procreation.
If procreation is not an issue, why prohibit brother and sister from marrying? Oh I know, beacuse they might have sex, AND, create a child, who grows up, and posts on internet fourms under the moniker of "Big D". Now THAT makes sense.
<quoted text>
Thatta boy, you keep that going, I'm sure all those court cases specifically linking marriage and procreation, are just meaningless to the all great and powerful Big D. It must be lonely up on that mountain....I'm sure there's the occasionally sheep that happens along to keep you company.
I don’t lack anything, and you cannot find one case where a state refused a marriage license to a couple that both wanted one based on their intent or ability to have children.

You know you cannot win the argument ( as it is crystal clear to anyone ) so you go onto personal attacks.

It is easy to tell when you have one an argument with a child, they cannot stand up to what you say, so they go after either how you say it, or you personally.

I agree, the argument is over and done.

Don’t worry I will be here to remind you any time you use that incredibly lame argument

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183748
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You think it is the only reason????
C'mon XBox, use your head for something other than a hat rack. Remove the sexual procreative aspect of the marital relationship, and what else is there to generate a compelling state interest? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying? Its because they might have sex, and make a baby, named Xavier Breath....just kidding.
Well ain't it just too bad that YOU don't get to make that determination for the State?
That reason was made long before you, or I were born. Do you think its a fluke that SSM never, other than a few scattered historical examples, existed before in the West, or around the globe for that matter?
There are many other reasons: longer life, better health, reduced crime, and it promotes financial independence. And these SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN benefits occur whether or not there are children involved.
Scientifically proven on untold numerous studies conducted on husbands AND wives. There's not sufficient numbers or studies to conclusively prove such studies are applicable to SSM, male or female. If a study shows that married men live longer because of their wife, would that study be applicable to a female SSC? Male SSC? What about plural marriage? If what you are saying is true, there's no reason not to allow that. It would benefit plural marriage practioners too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183749
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you PLEASE learn something about logic. You make statemnts WITHOUT any proof. "...it would have appeared long before now..." is meaningless.
Why is that meaningless? Same sex sexual behavior is not new, so why hasn't it translated into a SSM culture/structure across time and place, before now?
If women should have the right to vote, why didn't our country start out that way?
The right to vote is an indiovidual right. It doesn't require a person vote in conjunction with anyone else, in order for the right to be exercised. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally sanctioned relationship, regulated, and defined, by the state. A person can claim s/he has the right to marry,(________one than one husband/wife, his/her brother or sister, etc.), but its up to the state as to whether or not such claim is valid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183750
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
And before you try to respond, we are not talking about reasons for a divorce, you can get a divorce for no reason at all ( irreconcilable differences ) all it takes is for one party to want a divorce and it can be over eating crackers in bed.
we are talking about the denial of a marriage license to a couple that both want one.
Intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a pre-requisite for them to obtain a marriage license. You won’t be able to find a single case where the state denied the license based on their intent or ability to have children.
It is a dead argument
That's what it is! Your mother and father were brother and sister. That's why you vehemently deny that procreation and marriage are linked. Of course there's no requirement to procreate in order to get married. Why would there be? Not every opposite sex couple can have, or will have coital sexual intercourse, and/or procreated, or choose to procreate. But we do know that certain pairings that might have sexual intercourse and/or procreate, are barred from obtaining a license. Ya know it makes sense, your Mom and Dad are siblings. Oh the humanity.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183751
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what it is! Your mother and father were brother and sister. That's why you vehemently deny that procreation and marriage are linked. Of course there's no requirement to procreate in order to get married. Why would there be? Not every opposite sex couple can have, or will have coital sexual intercourse, and/or procreated, or choose to procreate. But we do know that certain pairings that might have sexual intercourse and/or procreate, are barred from obtaining a license. Ya know it makes sense, your Mom and Dad are siblings. Oh the humanity.
Yes, a child always attacks the person when they cannot stand up to the argument.

I agree, you totally lost that argument... again

Do yourself a favor, don’t bring that lame argument up again, it will just be trounced again.

The intent or ability to have children has NEVER been a pre-requisite to marry. You cannot find a case where a marriage license was refused because the couple that wanted to marry did not intend, or have the ability to have children.

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 ]
•••