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
161,321 - 161,340 of 200,324 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184763
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184764
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184765
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184766
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184767
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184768
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184769
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184770
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184771
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184772
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184773
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184774
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184777
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184778
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184779
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184780
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

Laurel, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184781
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184782
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184783
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184784
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Every singly post of Kuntmary's is anal abuse.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 ]
•••