Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204710 Jul 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I know veterans that have lost the lower half of their bodies that could not in any way procreate or consummate that were married. There is no such expectation, and they had no difficulty obtaining a marriage license, and are now married.
Do you really? How many?

Judged:

10

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204711 Jul 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no expectation of procreation in order to get a marriage license.
Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“[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.
There is no expectation of consummation in order to get a marriage license.
Just one man, and one woman, in thirty plus states.
I know veterans that have lost the lower half of their bodies that could not in any way procreate or consummate that were married. There is no such expectation, and they had no difficulty obtaining a marriage license, and are now married.
As long as they entered into a legally recognized u ion of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, they are married.
Your eyes are still tightly closed to the fact that same sex couples are legally married and recognized as such on both the state and federal level.
But treated, and acknowledged as different. A veggie patty is now a "burger". A man can be a lesbian too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204712 Jul 25, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Endless yammering about nonexistent things doesn't alter the fact that I'm still married, and you're baby mill marriage isn't given any special standing. Not a damn thing you can do about it!!
Smile.
And men can be lesbians, veggie patties are "burgers". And to think, at one time a "gay man" was defined as a womanizer. Embrace your inner womanizer Joanie.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204713 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In all those cases, apart from age and medical conditions, the possibility of consummation is there.
For ss couples? Never.
The same is true about children.
Ss couples are 100% mutually barren.
Consummation is just another profound example of the differences between ss couples and marriage.
The absolute inability to connect the past and the future of humanity in the moment of marriage union.
Admit it, VV, ss couples are disqualified. ALWAYS.
You know, maybe your marriage doesn't live up to what we believe it should be.

You've never had to fight tooth and nail to get your marriage recognized. You've never had to endure the possible loss of family, friends, employment; all in order to be with the person you love.

My guess is that if you had to do these things, most of you straight bigots would probably just shack up and avoid the inconveniences.

Your marriage will never mean as much as the marriage between two people of the same gender.

You spend billions each year on ridiculous weddings--with $3000 white gowns signifying "purity". Most of the time when a bride comes prancing down the aisle in a white dress, it's all the guests can do to keep a straight face.

Then you turn around and spend almost as much divorcing as you did on marrying.

Oh, and let's not forget about the 40,000,000 babies you guys abort each year. Your children are SO important to you! Tell me, Kim, is abortion also a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior"?

Those kids who do happen to make it out of the sacred birth canal; about one in three end up in a home where the father is absent.

You're right... Same-sex couples are very much unlike you. If we have children, it's because we wanted them. We fight through very strict adoption processes in order to have them. I'd lay odds that the percentage of intact same-sex families WAY outnumber the percentage of intact opposite-sex families.

We want our marriages. We want our families.

Your marriages will never equal same-sex marriages.

(see how easy it is to turn things around on you?)
well

Round Lake, IL

#204717 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I see human beings living in severe denial, trying to build a fallacy on the backs of marriage, family and children.
The most caring thing I can do is confront that denial as severely as necessary.
I simply point out unchangeable realities. Think about what you are asking people to do.
Bullshit! You are here primarily because you have a fear and hatred of gay men...you don't seem to have a problem with lesbians. You have spent a few years lying about why you are here. Why not try to be honest for a change?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204718 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“[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.
<quoted text>
Just one man, and one woman, in thirty plus states.
<quoted text>
As long as they entered into a legally recognized u ion of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, they are married.
<quoted text>
But treated, and acknowledged as different. A veggie patty is now a "burger". A man can be a lesbian too.
You report: Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

I say that this sentence indicates that while having children may be ONE of the primary purposes of marriage, it IS NOT the only purpose of marriage. It's disingenuous to portray this quote as the ONLY reason for marriage.

Same can be said with your next reference, "[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.

See how the sentence uses the word "primarily"? That indicates that there are other societal values (and I would argue that there are also personal values) associated with marriage.

Here's a hint... READ what you are post before posting. Be sure that your references support your beliefs 100 percent. That way people like me won't have to correct you.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204719 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Coitus.
<quoted text>
Pietro believes marriage is a union of husband and wife, and that said union should recognized, privileged, and soley legally maintained, as such. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, marriage is a union of both sexes.
<quoted text>
He is puzzled by SSM advocates who insist that conjugality is expendable, but monogamy is not. Perhaps the all powerful and wise Big D, or his sidekick Big Red, could explain this.
Because the government doesn't have an interest in "conjugality" within a marriage unless one of the people in the marriage brings the issue before a court. Polygamy and incest have both been addressed by the government. They have specifically created laws against polygamy and incest.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with the courts.
POOF

Rock Island, IL

#204721 Jul 25, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! You are here primarily because you have a fear and hatred of gay men...you don't seem to have a problem with lesbians. You have spent a few years lying about why you are here. Why not try to be honest for a change?
ROFLMAO, He's all about Jebus
Coined

Covina, CA

#204722 Jul 25, 2013
Still looking for that parking space, man?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204723 Jul 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You report: Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
I say that this sentence indicates that while having children may be ONE of the primary purposes of marriage, it IS NOT the only purpose of marriage. It's disingenuous to portray this quote as the ONLY reason for marriage.
Same can be said with your next reference, "[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.
See how the sentence uses the word "primarily"? That indicates that there are other societal values (and I would argue that there are also personal values) associated with marriage.
Here's a hint... READ what you are post before posting. Be sure that your references support your beliefs 100 percent. That way people like me won't have to correct you.
The point is Big Red....take away the baby making aspect, and what left that suffices for a compelling state interest? If sex didn't make little Very Vermilions, would there be a need for "marriage"?
pico pico

Covina, CA

#204724 Jul 25, 2013
No it was red rooster.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204725 Jul 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the government doesn't have an interest in "conjugality" within a marriage unless one of the people in the marriage brings the issue before a court. Polygamy and incest have both been addressed by the government. They have specifically created laws against polygamy and incest.
If you have a problem with that, then take it up with the courts.
Conjugality as in "husband and wife", its not simply a reference to coitus.

We both know polygamy is following the blazing trail left by ssm, so why deny it? Its all one big happy marriage equally tent.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204726 Jul 25, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! You are here primarily because you have a fear and hatred of gay men...you don't seem to have a problem with lesbians. You have spent a few years lying about why you are here. Why not try to be honest for a change?
So it's 'hate' hiding behind reality.

Kind of convenient for one of us, don't you think?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204727 Jul 25, 2013
POOF wrote:
<quoted text>ROFLMAO, He's all about Jebus
Oh, it's Jesus now, and not hate?

Anything else besides reality?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204728 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“[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.
<quoted text>
Just one man, and one woman, in thirty plus states.
<quoted text>
As long as they entered into a legally recognized u ion of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, they are married.
<quoted text>
But treated, and acknowledged as different. A veggie patty is now a "burger". A man can be a lesbian too.
then explain to me why we allow injured veterans to obtain marriage licenses when it is a medical fact that they cannot procreate or consummate?

I know the reason already of course, there is no legal requirement

But with your wrong interpretation of the law, how do you explain it?

they are acknowledged, by both state and federal law, and a majority of voters as well. Not that they need anyone else’s approval other than the law
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204729 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's 'hate' hiding behind reality.
Kind of convenient for one of us, don't you think?
Oh no, your hate hides behind your religion
Red Rooster

Covina, CA

#204730 Jul 25, 2013
Made a cock and bal mess out of it's competition.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204731 Jul 25, 2013
POOF wrote:
<quoted text>ROFLMAO, He's all about Jebus
"Jebus". I read this often from you commie pinko kumbaya dream team Christian hating fruitloops. What is the significance? "Jebus"? I don't get it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204732 Jul 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, your hate hides behind your religion
Calm down Miss Drama.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204733 Jul 25, 2013
"This thread is now moot" -Loudmouthed Big D two weeks ago.

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
Hartnell Janitors Must Clean Up Behavior by Rev... Thu Reverend Patryse ... 1
(WORKING LINK HERE) BITCH DONALD: Go, Bitch, Go... Thu Reverend Patryse ... 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Jun 21 dig 55
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Jun 13 Joel 72,030
Where are the communal showers in Monterey? May 28 Jeremy 2
News Monterey working to prohibit alcohol, without a... May '16 DNTs 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May '16 doug Gifford 1,542
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages