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
162,481 - 162,500 of 200,336 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185993
Apr 1, 2013
 
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185995
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your theory couples that never bear children aren't really married? If its just for mating and reproduction?
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185996
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your government needs to IMMEDIATELY stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not willing to sign a BINDING contract that their marriage WILL RESULT in children.
If these couples cannot or will not produce children, then the government should have the ability to annul such marriages--maybe even filing criminal charges against such couples break such laws.
Stop sterile and elderly couples from marrying. Stop couples who have no interest in children from marrying.
Any other marriage, as you say, is simply supporting friendships.
Waitaminit VV. SSM advocates often stress marriage is about love, yet do not argue the state annul marriages of couples who are no longer "in love", or require a "love test", prior to issuance of a marriage license. Why?

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185997
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
I didn't marry the wrong woman I hadn't yet met the right man. ;)

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185998
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Please, teach us your ways oh great Jared! Your words of wisdom are those to live by!;)
Thank you!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185999
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
Very lame try

If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.

This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.

There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.

I donít care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186000
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
You know, just because something isn't openly discussed in history does not mean it didn't take place. There is an 11,600 year old drawing on a cave in Sicily that depicts homosexuality.

You won't likely find that in a traditional history book.

But given the age, I believe it qualifies as an example of how homosexual behavior has "deep seated roots" in the society of mankind.

Other depictions have been found that are 9,000 years old and over 4,000 years old.

Keep in mind that the Jewish race is believed to be about 3,800 years old.

So homosexuality was in place LONG before the name Yahweh was ever uttered from someone's lips.

Have I proven my point?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186001
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny Cochran was an excellent lawyer who kept an innocent man from being framed for murder.
Too funny!

He was an excellent lawyer. But OJ is GUILTY as charged. The glove fit.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186002
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?
Here we go again. She didn't mention God in the post you responded to. YOU DID dummy. And then you whine about people posting religious stuff.

You're OFF TOPIC. Go start a GOD thread.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186003
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Very lame try
If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.
This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.
There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.
I donít care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.
They didn't laugh the argument out of court. They politely laughed at the lame joke about older people procreating.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186004
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit VV. SSM advocates often stress marriage is about love, yet do not argue the state annul marriages of couples who are no longer "in love", or require a "love test", prior to issuance of a marriage license. Why?
Because the reason that two people get married is none of the state's buisness.

That's been our argument all along. You guys are the ones who keep saying that marriage is about child rearing. Yet the state does not mandate child rearing in order to obtain a license and get married.

It would be just as ridiculous for the state to insist that everyone who gets married must be in love.

As I've pointed out to Kimare, there are dozens of reasons that people get married. Some get married because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some get married in order to gain stability. Some get married for money. Some get married based on the looks of their spouse. Some get married in order to increase their station in life (i.e. a poor man marries into a wealthy family). Some get married out of love. Some get married for the purpose of creating a family.

Nobody knows the real reason every single person gets married.

And the state has never set limits as to "why" someone can get married. Well, the only limit I can think of is that the the state will not allow someone to marry who is already married to someone else. You must first go through a divorce. Then you can get married.

Bottom line, the state will never mandate that offspring must be planned prior to a marriage. And the state will never mandate that deep and unabiding love exist throughout a marriage.

As far as I know, the words "children" or "love" aren't mentioned on any marriage license.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186005
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>I am having fun:)
Good! Big D's not. He's pissed off about other people's religion.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186006
Apr 1, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't laugh the argument out of court. They politely laughed at the lame joke about older people procreating.
LOL so you think this is your big ticket to defeat Same Sex marriage, I will let all the other people that cannot or intend not to have children know.

The argument stopped there, after those comments there was no further push as "procreation" as any argument against same sex marriage as the lawyers had no response, there was nothing they coul do to separate same sex couples and punish them, without including a lot of other folks they didnít intend to punish.

it is still a dead argument, going nowhere except amongst the incredibly ignorant

If however you wish to further pursue this line of argument, please show me where.... anywhere in the US, that the ability or intent to have children is a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.

I am not interested in divorce or annulment as that takes one party in the marriage to desire one, I am talking about a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186007
Apr 1, 2013
 
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
Your side has Hemp Head....or whatever.....and my side has a Bluto. Neck and neck....
:-D
Hemp Telelgraph. Can't even spell his own name.

That dopey jackass Big D, always ranting about religion, is on my side too. Oy vey.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186008
Apr 1, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good! Big D's not. He's pissed off about other people's religion.
Not true I treat all religions equally

Christianity is as valid as Volcano worship, Islam is as valid as Scientology, all the same in the eyes of the law.

And you are free to believe one or all of the, and deserve equal protection and equal rights under the law in practicing them.

and we are free to laugh at them as well
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186009
Apr 1, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL so you think this is your big ticket to defeat Same Sex marriage, I will let all the other people that cannot or intend not to have children know.
The argument stopped there, after those comments there was no further push as "procreation" as any argument against same sex marriage as the lawyers had no response, there was nothing they coul do to separate same sex couples and punish them, without including a lot of other folks they didnít intend to punish.
it is still a dead argument, going nowhere except amongst the incredibly ignorant
If however you wish to further pursue this line of argument, please show me where.... anywhere in the US, that the ability or intent to have children is a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.
I am not interested in divorce or annulment as that takes one party in the marriage to desire one, I am talking about a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license
This is not a game or contest. No one laughed at another's position in the Supreme Court liar.

I support SSM your dopey paranoia notwithstanding.

You can lie all you want and declare I do not, but that's a very dumb way to argue and you will lose.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186010
Apr 1, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true I treat all religions equally
Christianity is as valid as Volcano worship, Islam is as valid as Scientology, all the same in the eyes of the law.
And you are free to believe one or all of the, and deserve equal protection and equal rights under the law in practicing them.
and we are free to laugh at them as well
Go start a religion thread or a I laugh at you thread. This one is about marriage equality. Which I support and you do not.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186011
Apr 1, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
To be perfectly honest, I think widespread "legal marriage" that we know today (whether through the state or through the church) developed simply as a means of record keeping.

Keep in mind that homosapien is believed to have been on the planet at least 100,000 years.

Imagine how it must have been in ancient, rural or sparsely populated areas of the world. Were there churches? Were there official governments?

My guess is that ancient people paired up and started families without the use of pastors or leaders or officials of any kind.

Widespread marriage came about much later.

I'm guessing... I have no proof.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186012
Apr 1, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a game or contest. No one laughed at another's position in the Supreme Court liar.
I support SSM your dopey paranoia notwithstanding.
You can lie all you want and declare I do not, but that's a very dumb way to argue and you will lose.
I didnít call anyone a liar, a joke was made, the question asked, the lawyers could not respond and the topic was dropped.

You can lie all you want, but it was laughed out of court, that is certainly my view of it and the view of quite a number of other people.

If you want to talk about losing, lets see what happens in the next couple of months with Prop 8 and DOMA

care to make a wager... loser?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186013
Apr 1, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Go start a religion thread or a I laugh at you thread. This one is about marriage equality. Which I support and you do not.
No thanks I will post what I like where I like, particularly as it seems to annoy you :)

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 ]
•••