Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184753 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?
what narrow mindedness.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184754 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
can someone please show me where a state stepped in and dissolved a marriage against the wishes of both parties because the state did not consider the "consummation" to be correct?
Sigh...Big D....no state has done that, or could do that. It doesn't change the meaning, the sexual reference of "consumation" as it relates to husband AND wife. We both big boys, and have consumated, the old fashioned coital way, our marriages. Even created a few children that way.
One case please... either show me the case where a marriage was dissolved against the wishes of both parties by the state, or the consummation argument is now at an end.
Not a requirement for a state to recognize a marriage.
You're doing it again Big D, ignoring the point. Consumation is not a requirement. I never said it was.

http://info.legalzoom.com/annulment-requireme...
Failure to Consummate

Although not common in todayís society, failure to consummate a marriage remains a legal reason for annulment. Failure to consummate, when it occurs, may have its roots in physical inability as opposed to unwillingness. Male impotence as well as a female condition referred to as ďvaginismusĒ have been linked to failure to initiate marital relations.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/L...
Marriages Are Annulled in Special Cases

Q.: What is an annulment?
A.: When certain circumstances, exist, a court can grant a marriage annulment, which means that the marriage is not only terminated, but treated as if it never took place.

Q.: What are these certain circumstances?
A.: The circumstances under which a marriage is annulled are called "grounds." There are six grounds for an annulment. You may qualify for an annulment if, at the time of the marriage:


6) Your marriage was never consummated. This means that you and your spouse failed to have physical relations at any time following the marriage ceremony. Such an annulment action also must be filed within two years of the date of the marriage
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184755 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?
Please show me the case where the state stepped in, and against the wishes of both parties, dissolved the marriage because the state did not consider the consummation successful

show me the law where this is a requirement to be married ( not get a divorce anyone can divorce anyone for any stupid reason )

One case, that is all we need, were the state dissolved the marriage against the wishes of both parties

Or this is another dead end argument

I know people that got married that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies in Vietnam who got married, this will be huge news for them that you consider their marriages illegal.

Not that they will give a darn what you think
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184756 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying wonít help you, I didnít say it was one issue, I said every major issue, every cause of the secession ( quite a number of them ) was tied to the institution of slavery and the continuation of that institution.
That is a fact
there is really no use in talking history with someone who didnt read it from the same taxt books as you and I did.

think of it as a texas school board of education, style curiculum....

ricardo is a bit weak on history and science(esp)

texas tea.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184757 Mar 26, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is really no use in talking history with someone who didnt read it from the same taxt books as you and I did.
think of it as a texas school board of education, style curiculum....
ricardo is a bit weak on history and science(esp)
texas tea.
It is like they are only getting skewed information, Lost Cause arguments, and conspiracy theory websites and Faux News and nowhere else.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184758 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me the case where the state stepped in, and against the wishes of both parties, dissolved the marriage because the state did not consider the consummation successful
show me the law where this is a requirement to be married ( not get a divorce anyone can divorce anyone for any stupid reason )
One case, that is all we need, were the state dissolved the marriage against the wishes of both parties
Or this is another dead end argument
As I have stated, but you continue to ignore because it shows the mighty Big D is not infaliable, there is no legal requirement to consumate. But, you'll probably continue to rant on. Failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, or are you going to argue that is not the case?
I know people that got married that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies in Vietnam who got married, this will be huge news for them that you consider their marriages illegal.
Not that they will give a darn what you think
I know people that will distort other's opinions because they are unwilling, or unable to engage in rational debate an discussion. Plese point out where I said anyone's marriage is illegal for failure to consumate. You've been up on that mountain way too long. Come down for a while, clear your head.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184759 Mar 26, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
what narrow mindedness.
For pointing out the obvious? Or for pointing out something you either don't agree with, or are unable to acknowledge its validity?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184760 Mar 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>...and that is the ONLY accepted legal definition, is it? How very odd..... Gay couples cannot consummate their marriages, yet they get married every day.... strange.
Someone is out of touch with reality.
It doesn't change the definition of the word, now does it Xbox. Simply because several states have chosen to designate same sex sexual intimate relationships as marriage doesn't change the meaning of every word related to the union of husband and wife. But I understand, you have to say something.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184761 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated, but you continue to ignore because it shows the mighty Big D is not infaliable, there is no legal requirement to consumate. But, you'll probably continue to rant on. Failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, or are you going to argue that is not the case?
<quoted text>
I know people that will distort other's opinions because they are unwilling, or unable to engage in rational debate an discussion. Plese point out where I said anyone's marriage is illegal for failure to consumate. You've been up on that mountain way too long. Come down for a while, clear your head.
so .. consummation... dead argument against same sex marriage

Along with procreation... dead argument against same sex marriage

what else you got
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184762 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't change the definition of the word, now does it Xbox. Simply because several states have chosen to designate same sex sexual intimate relationships as marriage doesn't change the meaning of every word related to the union of husband and wife. But I understand, you have to say something.
No several states have declared same sex marriage as legal as heterosexual marriages, any attack on marriage in those states applies to both heterosexual and homosexuals as well.

Equal in the eyes of the law, as it should be
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184763 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated, but you continue to ignore because it shows the mighty Big D is not infaliable, there is no legal requirement to consumate. But, you'll probably continue to rant on. Failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, or are you going to argue that is not the case?
<quoted text>
I know people that will distort other's opinions because they are unwilling, or unable to engage in rational debate an discussion. Plese point out where I said anyone's marriage is illegal for failure to consumate. You've been up on that mountain way too long. Come down for a while, clear your head.
and by the way, annulment requires one of the parties to desire a divorce, which places consummation of the marriage on equal footing with eating crackers in bed as grounds for a divorce

Not a requirement

I am willing to have a rational argument, no one on the other side of the issue has presented one yet

grounds for a divorce ( or annulment ) are NOT the same as requirements by the state to recognize someoneís marriage, you need to get that through your head before you continue.

To make an argument for a requirement means you would show how the state would refuse in the first place, to issue a license.

I know individuals that fought in Vietnam who donít have the use of the lower parts of their bodies, that married, the state granted them the license

That kills both the procreation and consummation arguments in one fell swoop, you want to attack our vets, please do so with a video camera running because we want that for You Tube

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184764 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
so .. consummation... dead argument against same sex marriage
Along with procreation... dead argument against same sex marriage
what else you got
Atta boy Big D! The Great and Mighty Big D has spoken. Do you have any more "Big D" bobble head dolls, they were a "big" hit in North Korea.

A marriage in certain states can be annulled for failure to consummate the marriage. That is a legal fact. Another legal difference between SSM and OSM. What else ya got, oh Wonderful and Wise Wizard of Big D?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184765 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Atta boy Big D! The Great and Mighty Big D has spoken. Do you have any more "Big D" bobble head dolls, they were a "big" hit in North Korea.
A marriage in certain states can be annulled for failure to consummate the marriage. That is a legal fact. Another legal difference between SSM and OSM. What else ya got, oh Wonderful and Wise Wizard of Big D?
No question those arguments are dead, I like that the supreme court actually laughed at the procreation argument.

a marriage can be annulled ( or divorce ) for eating crackers in bed, if you are arguing that consummation is on equal footing with eating crackers in bed as a requirement for a marriage license, I agree, same level... which is zero

You keep making arguments about grounds for divorce as requirement s to get a marriage license... bzzzzzt..... WRONG!!!!

Try again Monte

A serial adulterer can get a marriage license to marry again.

A person can be divorced for snoring, but they dont check you for snoring before allowing you to get a marriage license.

you have to separate in your mind that grounds for an annulment or divorce does not formulate a requirement to get a marriage license in the first place.

2 different things that you seem to have melded in your head.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184766 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and by the way, annulment requires one of the parties to desire a divorce, which places consummation of the marriage on equal footing with eating crackers in bed as grounds for a divorce
Not a requirement
Failure to consumate is a specific grounds for annulment in certain states, eating crackers in bed is not. But thanks for trying.
I am willing to have a rational argument, no one on the other side of the issue has presented one yet
One that you agree with, that doesn't mean the argument is not rational.
grounds for a divorce ( or annulment ) are NOT the same as requirements by the state to recognize someoneís marriage, you need to get that through your head before you continue.
Oh Big D, I have. It does illustrate, that not everything between SSM and OSM is "equal".
To make an argument for a requirement means you would show how the state would refuse in the first place, to issue a license.
That presumes I said it was a requirement.
I know individuals that fought in Vietnam who donít have the use of the lower parts of their bodies, that married, the state granted them the license.
One male, one female, of age, consented, not blood relatives, and not currently married.
That kills both the procreation and consummation arguments in one fell swoop,
Once again Big D, your pontification as gotten in the way of reality. Procreation, as stated by various courts is the reason the state has an iterest in marriage, and consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. It does not mean it is required, simply part of the concept of marriage, and recognized in law.
you want to attack our vets, please do so with a video camera running because we want that for You Tube
Oh boy....that thin air on the mountain has really gotten to you. Has same sex marriage become such a sacred secular cause that you have to resort to characterizing those who disagree with it, as "you want to attack our vets"? How do you know whether or not I served?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184767 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure to consumate is a specific grounds for annulment in certain states, eating crackers in bed is not. But thanks for trying.
I donít need to read the rest because you still donít get it, so we will stay on this until you get it through your thick skull

eating crackers in bed is a reason that you can be divorced for

snoring is something you can be divorced for

is eating crackers in bed or snoring something you can be denied a marriage license for?

Our vets that have come home from war unable to consummate or procreate denied marriage licenses? Are you attacking their marriages because if you are we want this on TV

They are unable to consummate, and unable to procreate and yet they are getting married!!!! IOh the horror for you

why arenít you attacking our veterans that are unable to procreate or consummate, the states are giving them marriage licenses as if it was not a requirement as you so desperately ( and wrongly ) think it is

One more time, I donít care what grounds for annulment or divorce you bring up, that requires one party to want an annulment or divorce. You are talking about using those grounds to deny people that both WANT to be married.

and the answer is... no, you donít get to do that

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184768 Mar 26, 2013
Dorn wrote:
"How gay marriage has disappeared as a political issue"
a news headline today
Maybe that is because Republicans are aware that some of their relatives are finally "coming out of the closet".
All rats leave a sinking ship sooner or later :)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184769 Mar 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has already once impacted the state's ability to regulate marriage in 1967 when decided in the Loving v. Virginia case. It overturned not only Virginia's law against interracial marriage, but it also overturned its own 1883 decision, Pace v. Alabama, in which a ban on interracial marriage was upheld.
If you people would simply read the Loving v Virginia decision you MIGHT, and I say might because many of you aren't that bright, understand why this decision has NOTHING to do with the current issue.

Loving V Virginia dealt with racial discrimination. The court was clear as to why it came to the decision it did.

" The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."- Loving v Virginia
Sparkle

Bellevue, WA

#184770 Mar 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If you people would simply read the Loving v Virginia decision you MIGHT, and I say might because many of you aren't that bright, understand why this decision has NOTHING to do with the current issue.
Loving V Virginia dealt with racial discrimination. The court was clear as to why it came to the decision it did.
" The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."- Loving v Virginia
Stfu bigot

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184771 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít need to read the rest because you still donít get it, so we will stay on this until you get it through your thick skull
eating crackers in bed is a reason that you can be divorced for
snoring is something you can be divorced for
is eating crackers in bed or snoring something you can be denied a marriage license for?
Again you extract arguments, which do not exist, from my posts, in order, to give you a reason to continue to pontificate. No fault divorce is just that. Annullments, in certain states have specific grounds, one of which failure to consummate, cannot be used by same sex couples. Thus they are not the same in all marital matters. I did not say a person can be denied a marriage license for failure to consummate.
Our vets that have come home from war unable to consummate or procreate denied marriage licenses? Are you attacking their marriages because if you are we want this on TV
The only one doing that is you, for exploiting the marriages of vets to attack those who disagree with you, disgraceful.
They are unable to consummate, and unable to procreate and yet they are getting married!!!! IOh the horror for you
No shame on you, for exploiting them just so you can shut down any dissent from the sacred secular orthodoxy of same sex marriage.
why arenít you attacking our veterans that are unable to procreate or consummate, the states are giving them marriage licenses as if it was not a requirement as you so desperately ( and wrongly ) think it is
Why are you using them to bolster your arguments? Rather disgraceful.
One more time, I donít care what grounds for annulment or divorce you bring up, that requires one party to want an annulment or divorce. You are talking about using those grounds to deny people that both WANT to be married.
and the answer is... no, you donít get to do that
You don't get tell the husband or the wife their both interchangeable, and expendable. Many people want to marry, including fundamentalist Mormons.

So how do you know whether or not I served?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184772 Mar 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
"Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pounded Cooper for linking marriage to child-bearing, with Kagan asking if states could also prohibit couples over age 55 from getting married. Cooper responded that even in that case, at least one member of the marriage would likely still be fertile, a suggestion that drew laughter from the courtroom."
It wasn't so much of a pounding if you actually listen to or read the actual transcript. It was really much to do about nothing, though the pro same-sex marriage blogs are all a buzz with it. Funny how they completely ignore the other Justices whom didn't find the link to procreation to be so far fetched.

No, "pounding" wouldn't be the word. But then again when you are biased you will grab any glimmer of hope and twist it from context to such a point where you can act as though things are going your way.

Actually, if anyone actually listened to the arguments, or read the entire transcript, they could only come to one conclusion- they gave us little indication one way or another how they will decide this. For all intents and purpose, this is up in the air.

That is if you aren't looking at it through your rose colored glasses.

I personally think we will get a little more insight into the direction of the court after tomorrow, as the DOMA case really hit's hard on the Federal v State role in the definition of marriage. But that remains to be seen tomorrow.

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) 5 hr JOEL 70,024
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
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

Beach Hazards Statement for Monterey County was issued at October 21 at 7:51PM PDT

Monterey Dating
Find my Match

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 ]