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 (Page 8,418)

Showing posts 168,341 - 168,360 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Buddy L

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192817
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dick Chaney is an completeidiot and he can't shoot straight either.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192818
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.
The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 4Ė3 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Despite the brevity of Proposition 22 (it added only fourteen words to the Family Code) its effect provoked debate long after its passage. In November 2008 California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8.
KeS

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192819
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Buddy L wrote:
Dick Chaney is an completeidiot and he can't shoot straight either.
You spelled his name wrong Mr. Competent.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192820
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

fr KeS:

...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<

Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.

Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.

Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
Mike the Pike

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192821
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Y'all still pining away for buttpirates rights? what a waste of time and energy. When the muslims take over, gay marriage will end up where it rightfully belongs, in the septic tank of historically stupid ideas! Even the animals know better!
KeS

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192822
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Pattysboi wrote:
fr KeS:
...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<
Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.
Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.
Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
Not to worry I won't flash your party. Accept that your engagement is sick. Ask Sodom And Gomorrah. Oh, that's right, God destroyed them.
KeS

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192823
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Pattysboi wrote:
fr KeS:
...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<
Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.
Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.
Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
My disagreement is with the overturning of the Ban against SSM"s.
KeS

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192824
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone understands now that you are unaware of the fact
You donít have to keep repeating it, this isnít an argument.
They are recognized by the state, that is not a question. You are unaware they are recognized, we got that.
Big D*..*,
No, You may not argue with me.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192825
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

10

8

8

Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
:O)!
Could it get any better?
Yes, also a hermaphrodite with a non-functioning vagina, but I make up for it with three nipples.

SMile.
Mike the Pike

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192826
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

8

The people spoke loud and clear with their votes but A judge said "NO" ! We will allow .0001% of the population to override the desires of the rest of the state. What is wrong with this picture?

Even the animals know better!
Shooters

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192827
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

The president of a New York police union defended an officer who accidentally (murdered) killed a Hofstra University student during a standoff with an armed intruder.
Slogan Watch

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192828
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pattysboi wrote:
Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
It's not discrimination when WE do it!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192829
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Shooters wrote:
The president of a New York police union defended an officer who accidentally (murdered) killed a Hofstra University student during a standoff with an armed intruder.
Stupid trigger happy coward cop.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192830
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D*..*,
No, You may not argue with me.
There is no argument, there is a fact that you are ignorant of, thatís why there is no point to it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192831
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no argument, there is a fact that you are ignorant of, thatís why there is no point to it.
Wha?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192832
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."
--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country.
Perhaps it will. I don't deny it's a possibility
I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?
Right now I say 30 or so state constitutional amendments.
You said: "That is true, however the law recognizes the sexual nature of the male female relationship, and its procreative potential."
--The law does recognize the sexual nature of male/female relationships and its procreative potential, however marriage IS NOT based solely on that potential.
True, however if not for the fact that human reproduction is sexual, would marriage exist as we knowi it. Would there be a need for marriage at all.
There isn't a marriage license in the country that deals with procreation.
Uhhhhhh....okay.
Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows.
Annnnnnnd why would they have to be?
Laws that deal with parental issues are separate from laws that deal with marriage.
Are you arguing that procreation and marriage are not linked legal? Are there not court cases that mention the link? Presumption of paternity?
You said: "The motivations as to why people marry does not change the state's recognition of marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife, and it's potential to procreate. The state has a vested interest in privileging that relationship above all others for that reason."
--As you pointed out earlier, this is only the case in 32 states.
Not necessarily. So because some states have dropped the opposite sex requirement, the state's interest in marital procreation evaporates?
And I firmly disagree that the state has a vested interest in privileging a male/female relationship above all others.
Why not? It has for all of this nation's history.
If states had a vested interest in protecting a male/female relationship based on its ability to procreate, then states would MANDATE that parents be married before having children.
Why not ban premarital sex as well. Perhaps the state should MANDATE people be married before they have sex. That way if sexual intcourse results in conception, the man and woman will already be married.
We both know that states do not mandate that a child's biological parents must be married in order to have children. You don't even have to be married to adopt children.
One does not have to be married in order to have sex either, so what's your point?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192833
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "A couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. Couples can be of mixed orientation. A man cannot "have" a child, he can father a child, or adopt a child. A woman who uses ART, still must involve the opposite sex."
--But what does this have to do with marriage? Even your comment above doesn't indicate that couples MUST be married in order to do these things. In fact, states have set up very specific processes for those couples who have children (by accident or intention) who do not wish to become married. They set up visitation schedules, child support schedules, insurance coverage, education issues, etc.--all for unmarried parents.
So that means it's not in the state's best interest if the biological parents of the child are not married? Simply because the state has a procedure for dealing with unmarried parents doesn't not mean the state is discouraging the biological parents from marrying.
--Marriage IS NOT necessary for the procreation or rearing of children. This cannot be emphasized enough.
Emphasized by who? SSMers who want to further disconnect procreation from marriage? Adult s who as who were born out of wedlock?
If states believed that only married couples should have children--if states believed that children were of such great importance to marriage--then unmarried couples would be wholeheartedly discouraged from having children
How would the state do that?
. States would require that unmarried parents be married as soon as possible, even if they did not wish to be married. That's not how things work.
At one time societal pressure performed that function.....shotgun marriages.
--Finally, you must know that your "consummation argument" is very flimsy. Firstly, not all states or jurisdiction have a "consummation law". Secondly, "consummation" does not mean penile/vaginal penetration--any type of sexual activity (oral, tactile, etc.) can be defined as "sex".
Seriously Vee Vee....think about it.
And finally, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a case where a marriage has been annulled due to lack of "consummation"
Never the less it is legal grounds upon which to annul a marriage. Thus illustrating another difference between conjugal, husband and wife, marriage and SSM.
. Same-gender couples are capable of consummation.
What specific acts would constitute same sex "consummation"?
. I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you attempted to argue that same-gender couples cannot marry simply because they do not engage in an activity that you would define as "consummation".
I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you claimed a SSC could "consummate" in the same manner as an opposite sex couple, and as "consummation" is commonly understood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05...
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex Ė the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192834
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The tone of your previous posts have led me to believe that you think that gay people must agree with gay scientists, regardless of what they say.
Umm, science is science, it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

You can disagree with gravity all day long, you are still gonna hit the ground when you jump off the cliff.

The fact that he was homosexual was simply an added bonus, you are just pissed that I didn't pick someone you could claim had a bias agenda.
Mahmoud Abdullah

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192837
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

U shood not have gay marrij!! Being gay is a crime in my cuntry, becuz its bad to be gay. If u marry man and man that is a bad thing to have!! U SHOOD NOT DO BAD THINGS!!!! Plus also it is not rite to be gay, I am not gay so y r u?? If woman cum up to u and ask for marrij u will have to explain her familee y u tell no to her. Pleez stop being gay and then have marrij!! Pleez lisin to what I tell u I no what Im talk about ok my frend. So next time if u think about gay things dont do it and dont be gay and then marrij.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192839
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So that means it's not in the state's best interest if the biological parents of the child are not married? Simply because the state has a procedure for dealing with unmarried parents doesn't not mean the state is discouraging the biological parents from marrying.
<quoted text>
Emphasized by who? SSMers who want to further disconnect procreation from marriage? Adult s who as who were born out of wedlock?
<quoted text>
How would the state do that?
<quoted text>
At one time societal pressure performed that function.....shotgun marriages.
<quoted text>
Seriously Vee Vee....think about it.
<quoted text>
Never the less it is legal grounds upon which to annul a marriage. Thus illustrating another difference between conjugal, husband and wife, marriage and SSM.
<quoted text>
What specific acts would constitute same sex "consummation"?
<quoted text>
I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you claimed a SSC could "consummate" in the same manner as an opposite sex couple, and as "consummation" is commonly understood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05...
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex Ė the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.
Excellent posts!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 168,341 - 168,360 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••