Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,965

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

“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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184773 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is amazing
For Lincoln personally it wasnít, for Lincoln it was for preserving the union, and why was the union split up? Slavery and the continuation of slavery, the war was fought because the south seceded, and why did they secede?
Actually that was a very SMALL issue. The North was just as racist as the South, if you think for a moment the North would fight the South over the issue of slavery you are sadly mistaken.

The beloved "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't even free all the slaves, it only freed the slaves in territories not controlled by the Union. Those portions of the South that had been secured by the Union were still allowed to have their slave's.

No,slavery had little to do with it. For Lincoln it was about preservation and control. There was NO legal precedent for the war, our very existence as a nation was owed to the belief in secession. In a sense, Lincoln was no better than King George. Lincoln claimed it was his kingdom and none could leave, the only difference is Lincoln won.

Your very simplistic understanding shows that you stopped learning sometime after the 4th grade.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184774 Mar 26, 2013
Sparkle wrote:
<quoted text>Stfu bigot
Wow, what an intelligent and well thought out retort. Your parents must be so proud.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184777 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No question those arguments are dead, I like that the supreme court actually laughed at the procreation argument.
Did they really? The entire Supreme Court, or just a few justices, or was some people in the court room?
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
I'm not arguing its a requirement, just that it is a specific ground for an annulment.
You keep making arguments about grounds for divorce as requirement s to get a marriage license... bzzzzzt..... WRONG!!!!
Actually Big D. it is you who are wrong for ignoring what I actually write, and only reading what you wish to.
Try again Monte
Lou Monte? King of the Italian American novelty songs?
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.
No Big D, but thanks for asking. I'm fully aware of the differences.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184778 Mar 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I think they wear rainbow colored glasses.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184779 Mar 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
akpilot wrote:
How sad is it that there are generally 6-8 people who have no life, and spend their lonely days trolling the thread to post judge-it's not based on the content of the post, but based on the name attached to the post?
How much sadder would it be if there was only 1 person?
Seriously, look at the judge-its. With near 100% accuracy you will see page after page, 6-8 judge-it's.
So sad.
<quoted text>
He is not 'right here with us', he makes one of the most reasoned, respectful and thoughtful responses found here.
No matter what he says, there are 6 to 8 'judgits' that deem it 'hate'. Mindless responses like yours that simply reveal bigotry.
Grow up.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please, Kim... You are on about 10 (or more) of these gay themed forums. You've posted hundreds (thousands?) of comments over the past 3 years.
And you've most recently taken to outright LYING about epigenetics. You claim that science has reached the conclusion that an epigenetic marker "mistake" has been located. You say that there is no doubt. And you KNOW this is not true.
When you come on here and LIE, you continue to lose credibility.
Those who might support you do not like to be associated with a liar.
So your justification of childish troll behavior towards another poster is that I am on 10 forums and supposedly lie? Wow, that is 'logic' beyond normal...

Please quote where I claimed science reached a conclusion about epi-markers. I'm calling you a liar. Again...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184780 Mar 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
"Marriage Ruling Could Save Same-Sex Couples Thousands"
By Blake Ellis, CNN Money March 26, 2013
Should the Supreme Court overturn a federal law that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, some married same-sex couples will save $8,000 or more in income tax, a new analysis finds.
This week, the court will hear a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prevents same-sex couples from receiving more than 1,000 federal benefits that opposite-sex married couples receive.
This includes the right to file federal taxes jointly -- which, depending on income, gives some married filers a "bonus" of thousands of dollars, while penalizing others.
A same-sex couple with combined income of $100,000, in which one person earns $70,000 and the other makes $30,000, currently pays an extra $1,625 per year by filing separately rather than jointly, according to an analysis H&R Block conducted for CNNMoney. The calculations assume a standard deduction, no children and no tax credits.
The extra tax liability jumps to nearly $8,000 when one spouse earns all $100,000 and the other reports no income. In this case, couples filing jointly owe tax of $11,858, while a same-sex couple filing separately owes $19,585 -- a 65% difference.
Another major tax issue at stake in the DOMA case is the estate tax. Currently, surviving spouses in federally-recognized marriages don't have to pay taxes on their deceased spouse's estate, while same-sex widows pay a 35% estate tax on anything in excess of a $5 million exemption.
(read more here: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/26/pf/taxes/same... )
Marriage benefits were designed to support the biological children and the mothers who nutured them.

Gay couples not only don't qualify for those benefits, they don't need them. Nor is it right that they deplete the resources for those who do.

Man up VV. Being a queen is only pretend!

Smile.
WinstonSmithAKAs heesh

Bumpass, VA

#184781 Mar 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that was a very SMALL issue. The North was just as racist as the South, if you think for a moment the North would fight the South over the issue of slavery you are sadly mistaken.
The beloved "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't even free all the slaves, it only freed the slaves in territories not controlled by the Union. Those portions of the South that had been secured by the Union were still allowed to have their slave's.
No,slavery had little to do with it. For Lincoln it was about preservation and control. There was NO legal precedent for the war, our very existence as a nation was owed to the belief in secession. In a sense, Lincoln was no better than King George. Lincoln claimed it was his kingdom and none could leave, the only difference is Lincoln won.
Your very simplistic understanding shows that you stopped learning sometime after the 4th grade.
If I have my history correct I believe Lincoln thought the slaves were inferior beings even though he sympathised with their plight and he wasn't the darling of the true abolitionist.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184782 Mar 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people can consummate their marriage just like straight people. Keep in mind "consummation" does not equal reproduction. Any form of copulation would satisfy the definition of consummation for the sake of marriage.
Normal people distinguish between intercourse and anal abuse...

Did you miss me VV?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184783 Mar 26, 2013
When the pixie dust from the limp wristed gay twirl dance settles, this reality will still exist;

marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

ss couples can't qualify.

So I enjoyed a delightful, delicious dinner out as husband and wife for her birthday.

The best is yet to come...

Good night.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184784 Mar 26, 2013
Every singly post of Kuntmary's is anal abuse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184785 Mar 26, 2013
WinstonSmithAKAsheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have my history correct I believe Lincoln thought the slaves were inferior beings even though he sympathised with their plight and he wasn't the darling of the true abolitionist.
Not far from true.

Lincoln quotes you never saw in the history books:

""I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

"Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears."- Letter to Alexander Stephens

Other little Lincoln tid-bits you didn't hear about in school:

- July 1861- General Freeman declares martial law in Missouri, declares all slaves held by owners whom oppose the Union are free. Lincoln cancels the order. As a result Congress passes the Confiscation Act.

-May 1862, General David Hunter issued an order declaring all slaves in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina to be free. Lincoln again revokes the order. Congress again responds by passing the SECOND Confiscation Act.

They also won't tell you that Lincoln felt that the freed slaves should be COLONIZED elsewhere. Yup, he was looking to send the black out of the US. Congress even passed a bill to spend $100,000 to :

"to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine."

Yeah, Lincoln the "great emancipator".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184786 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?
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184787 Mar 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage benefits were designed to support the biological children and the mothers who nutured them.
Gay couples not only don't qualify for those benefits, they don't need them. Nor is it right that they deplete the resources for those who do.
Man up VV. Being a queen is only pretend!
Smile.
So, do these benefits end when the children are raised? What if the couple are sterile, don't want kids, or are too elderly to have kids? Do they not get these tax benefits as well?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#184788 Mar 26, 2013
Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) have joined a growing list of U.S. senators that have backed extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Also among the senators clarifying their same-sex marriage support in recent days are Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D), and as the Blade has reported, Virginiaís Mark Warner (D), Missouriís Claire McCaskill (D) and Ohioís Robert Portman (R).

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/26/kai...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184789 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
again I donít need to read any further, you still donít comprehend

and annulment requires one of the married couple to desire an annulment, it is NOT something the state will step in against their wishes and terminate the marriage.

You still have not been able to separate it in your tiny little mind so we will go over it again

Consummation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in any conceivable from, even fundamentalist Churches have performed marriage ceremonies for veterans that could not consummate the marriage, let alone the legal aspect that it is not in any way any kind of requirement for a marriage license.

Have you got that yet? or do we need to go over it again

No reason for a divorce or annulment is used to deny a couple that requests a marriage license.... do you have that now?

We can go over this dead argument as many times as you like

Procreation is a dead argument, consummation is a dead argumentÖ do you have it yet?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184790 Mar 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
Is there really any misunderstanding as to what "consummation" means? I understand legal SSM has brought forth efforts to render certain words non gender specific, or gender less, but some words just ain't gonna change.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184792 Mar 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Normal people distinguish between intercourse and anal abuse...
Did you miss me VV?
Snicker.
Youíre not smart enough or qualified to make a sweeping generalization about what ďnormalĒ people do. Youíre posts are more to insult than to impart any wisdom on anyone. You do realize that the definition of normal doesnít say anything about how people privately show love and affection for each other? Why do you think about or care what other do sexually?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184793 Mar 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
When the pixie dust from the limp wristed gay twirl dance settles, this reality will still exist;
marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples can't qualify.
So I enjoyed a delightful, delicious dinner out as husband and wife for her birthday.
The best is yet to come...
Good night.
Smile.
Iím sure sheís learned to endure your once or twice a year five minute interlude.

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
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 2 hr Go Blue Forever 2,268
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Mel 15,998
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr sanford 5,073
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 hr Frijoles 69,378
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 21 hr Blazing saddles 7,954
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
•••
•••

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 ]
•••