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
177,181 - 177,200 of 200,565 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204478
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?
You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.
You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.
Oh, I imagine a pastor would jump at the chance to meet with a "reprobate". Isn't that what you do? Aren't you supposed to be out saving souls and whatnot?

My guess, again, is that you won't face someone who is real. You'll only deal with this issue (as you do with most things) in the abstract.

You're not interested in reality.

I'll pay your gas to and from Knoxville (if you're still in Greeneville) to come to a gay men's discussion group, where you can address all of us in one room. We'd only be too happy to meet with you and hear your side.

Are you up for it?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204479
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

No Shows wrote:
What do scum like the GOP, RNC, Tea Party REPUBLICANS ALL HAVE IN COMMON?*There do nothings, the whole bunch of them!
Obama says D.C. has taken its eye off the ball, blaming GOP for gridlock in government.
They are Oh so good at dragging their 5 year old mentality feet, too.*There a bunch of NO SHOWS.
*They're
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204480
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D whimpered, after trying and failing to spin it that someone stated procreation is a requirement for marriage.
Don’t worry, as long as no one mentions procreation as any even a distantly related reason to not allow same sex couples to marry.

I won’t bring it up again

However if anyone mentions the ability to have children in any way at all as an argument to not allow same sex couples to marry, as you did, I will be happy to correct them
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204481
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

No Shows wrote:
What do scum like the GOP, RNC, Tea Party REPUBLICANS ALL HAVE IN COMMON? There do nothings, the whole bunch of them!
Obama says D.C. has taken its eye off the ball, blaming GOP for gridlock in government.
They are Oh so good at dragging their 5 year old mentality feet, too. There a bunch of NO SHOWS.
There, there, there probably all as el stupido as there are there. It's they're dim whit dropout welfare bagger. Obviously a lib eubonics 6th grader.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204482
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t worry, as long as no one mentions procreation as any even a distantly related reason to not allow same sex couples to marry.
I won’t bring it up again
However if anyone mentions the ability to have children in any way at all as an argument to not allow same sex couples to marry, as you did, I will be happy to correct them
I did not use children as an argument against marriage equality. You lie.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204483
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I second that. We both know and understand no such thing. Procreation is closely associated with marriage. It is one of the main reasons the government supports marriage and gives benefits to marriage.
.
Here you go, as you have obviously forgotten again

Procreation has not now nor ever been a basis for allowing marriage in this country.

Take your Alzheimer meds
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204484
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when marriage defined the wife as property of the husband?
No, just husband and wife
Like that "distinct" relationship?! I love when fundies try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
Or when the Glibtees try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
Courts dont' recognize your manufactured and ridiculous "essence of marriage". Courts are only interested in the law. And the courts find no compelling reason to continue to discriminate against gay people. Sucks for you.
Gay people can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, just like anyone else.
You've pointed out ONE distinction. That gay people won't be capable of producing a child without outside assistance. That distinction is completely irrelevant to the states, since marriage has no procreation requirement.
The fact that you are completely unable to grasp this reality isn't our problem, it's yours child.
Why would there need to be a "procreation requirement"? Is there a sex requirement? The law presumes a married couple will engage in "marital relations", aka sexual intercourse. Which of course leads to conception.
There is absolutely nothing in your nonsense that terrifies us. You are completely insignificant. Your refusal to acknowledge our marriages means diddly squat, because you are nothing more than a pimple on the face of humanity.
And you are a clown on that pimple.
10 years ago there were no states that would recognize our marriages. Today there are 13 states, the Disctrict of Columbia, and 17 foreign countries that recognize our marriages as the same as yours.
That's not quite accurate. Even the UK had to acknowledge the differences regarding consummation and SSM.
And those numbers will continue to grow, very quickly. The state bans will very soon be overturned as unconstitutional (watch Pennsylvania very close in the coming months sweetiepie!!!). The only one terrified....is you!!!!
Only time will tell.
The states, and the federal government will NEVER recognize your made up essences, your imaginary link to humanities existence and future, or your mutual sterility!!!! Ha ha ha ha haha ha!!!! Stupid KiMare!!!
Your ignorance continues.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204485
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there need to be a "procreation requirement"? Is there a sex requirement? The law presumes a married couple will engage in "marital relations", aka sexual intercourse. Which of course leads to conception..
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement, as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone else’s.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204486
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go, as you have obviously forgotten again
Procreation has not now nor ever been a basis for allowing marriage in this country.
Take your Alzheimer meds
No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage. You insist someone did. Prove it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204488
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204489
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement, as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone else’s.
Not to worry, there is no procreation requirement. Never was.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204490
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage. You insist someone did. Prove it.
I only remind people that it is not a requirement whenever they bring up the ability to have children as any kind of reason to not allow same sex marriage.

Don’t worry, they don’t mention procreation with respect to being able to marry, and neither will I.

When you used it, I reminded you, if you don’t like being reminded, try not forgetting that it is not now nor ever has been a requirement.

I don’t take orders from you and will say what I like, when I like :)
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204491
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204492
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
we don’t need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204493
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You just implied that was the case, I am happy to correct you.
Procreation has no place in a discussion about the legal right to marry
No, the whole reason for this argument is to correct you. No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage.

Yet you insist someone did. I have said (and I stand by it) that procreation is closely related to marriage and why argue otherwise? Any freshman sociology student knows that. And it's one of the reasons the government gives perks to marriage. Why argue otherwise? What is the goal of your spin? Of course procreation is associated with marriage. Of course it's never been a REQUIREMENT.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204494
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
You said that someone said procreation is a requirement of marriage. You lie. No one said that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204495
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
we don’t need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
I'd love to see you tell a judge that someday. "Your honor, I don't need to prove it, we already know and it is more fun to make fun that you are ignorant..."

Then you'd come flying out the courtroom door and land on your bony ass in the street!
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204496
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/gett...

“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541

“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204497
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.

“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204498
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement,
There isn't, for the umpteenth time, nor is there a requirement to have sex.
as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone else’s.
Of course we don't, its all about husband and wife, everything stems from that. A husband and wife, who choose not to have children, or cannot have children, are just a valuable to society as those husbands and wives that do. They both reinforce the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 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 ]
•••