Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,368

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.

Full Story
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183389 Mar 15, 2013
I should also point out that no nation on earth will deny a couple the right to marry even if it can be proved that one or both once ate crackers in bed.

Same with the intent or ability to have children
OgdenIdiots

Covina, CA

#183390 Mar 15, 2013
Charges of racism on the West Covina City Council

On February 5, 2013 the West Covina City Council appointed a new councilman to replace Mike Touhey, who resigned to be on the local water board. The council selected Andrew McIntyre to fill the council position by a 3-1 vote.
Herfert, Sanderson and Sotello voted for McIntyre and Sykes opposed the selection.

Herfert stated that Sykes opposed McIntyre because he is white.(Sykes is an African American). It should be noted that when Rob Sotello was appointed by the council in April 2012 that Sykes nominated two white West Covina citizens for council. I definitely feel that Sykes is not opposed to McIntyre because he is white.

Councilman Herfert did not attend the Feb. 19 council meeting because he stated he was sick. Also, he did not attend the March 5 meeting because he was on vacation. Many citizens who spoke at both meetings thought Herfert's comment about Sykes was very racist.
The citizens thought that Herfert should apologize to Sykes.

Herfert currently has not offered a written apology. Many feel that Herfert is trying to evade this controversial racial issue.

I definitely believe that Herfert at the next council meeting on March 19, 2013 should apologize to Sykes and the West Covina citizens for his racist remark.
bad

Ashland, AL

#183391 Mar 15, 2013
Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183392 Mar 15, 2013
bad wrote:
Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
I am a straight person, married, and I am not in any way offended or threatened by same sex couples marrying. We could do with fewer children anyway, the world is populated enough.

Don’t worry, most people are straight, there will be enough children, probably too many

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183393 Mar 15, 2013
bad wrote:
Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
Seems like most gay people survive just fine. Most people are beyond that, this topic is gay marriage.
bad

Ashland, AL

#183394 Mar 15, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Seems like most gay people survive just fine. Most people are beyond that, this topic is gay marriage.
vive the confused fuckups a few yrs and cut of the kid supply and let them die out

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183395 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I would take it even further than that. Marriage is a transformative process that turns a man and woman into each other's legally wedded, respective wife, or husband. It has deep seated historic, cultural, legal and religious roots. In fact the sexual union, of husband and wife, can, and often does, result in conception.
hus if the couple
<quoted text>
That is a definition, that requires the qualification of male to female and vice versa.
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.

However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.

Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.

So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.

Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.

There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.

The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:

--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.

--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183396 Mar 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.
However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.
Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.
So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.
Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.
There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.
The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:
--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.
--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Exactly right

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183397 Mar 15, 2013
Big D

Grounds for divorce:
A decree of divorce based upon the fault of one of the parties may be granted in Alaska for any of the following grounds:

Failure to consummate the marriage.
Adultery.
Conviction of a felony.
Willful desertion for a period of one year.
Cruel and inhuman treatment.
Personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
Incompatibility of temperament.
Habitual drunkenness or addiction to drugs.
Incurable mental illness.[Based on Alaska Statutes 25.24.050]
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183399 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Big D
Grounds for divorce:
A decree of divorce based upon the fault of one of the parties may be granted in Alaska for any of the following grounds:
Failure to consummate the marriage.
Adultery.
Conviction of a felony.
Willful desertion for a period of one year.
Cruel and inhuman treatment.
Personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
Incompatibility of temperament.
Habitual drunkenness or addiction to drugs.
Incurable mental illness.[Based on Alaska Statutes 25.24.050]
Not in California, you can divorce for no reason at all. I bleieve that is true in any state.

Irreconcilable differences ( which don’t have to be proven and can even be imaginary ) as long as one party wants a divorce... it can easily be done.

But you are going at this all backwards, we were talking about the ability to marry, not why one or both parties WANTS a divorce.

Still waiting to see where the state will refuse to marry a couple that both want to get married or stay married but don’t have the ability or desire to have children.

again procreation is not any pre-requisite for marriage, not any kind of factor at all.

Still trying to beat that dead horse?

That argument already lost in court, and in the appellate court, I doubt they will even try to make that lame of an argument in the Supreme court

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183401 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a straight person, married, and I am not in any way offended or threatened by same sex couples marrying. We could do with fewer children anyway, the world is populated enough.
That's very nice of you. Perhaps judges, and legislatures, should consult you before making any descions or passing any laws to see if it would offend you or not. As to your statement, why stop there. Are you offended by plural marriages, first cousins marrying, siblings, etc.? As long as you're not offended, there's no reason to ban such marriages.
Don’t worry, most people are straight, there will be enough children, probably too many
Some might even be a bit crooked. Do you tell your children that they're "too many"?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183402 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Big D
Grounds for divorce:
A decree of divorce based upon the fault of one of the parties may be granted in Alaska for any of the following grounds:
Failure to consummate the marriage.
Adultery.
Conviction of a felony.
Willful desertion for a period of one year.
Cruel and inhuman treatment.
Personal indignities rendering life burdensome.
Incompatibility of temperament.
Habitual drunkenness or addiction to drugs.
Incurable mental illness.[Based on Alaska Statutes 25.24.050]
By the way, those are reasons why someone that WANTS a divorce can get one.

But you are trying to use this argument as a way to NOT allow people to marry in the first place.

Are you saying that I can FORCE someone else in Alaska to have a divorce when neither party wants a divorce for one those reasons? Or keep someone from getting married ( as you so desperately are trying to do ) for any of those reasons? That in Alaska I can knock on someone’s door with evidence and force them against their will to have a divorce?

I will give you a hint... the answer is no

so far, you have produced squat as a reason for not allowing people to marry who both want to.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183404 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's very nice of you. Perhaps judges, and legislatures, should consult you before making any descions or passing any laws to see if it would offend you or not. As to your statement, why stop there. Are you offended by plural marriages, first cousins marrying, siblings, etc.? As long as you're not offended, there's no reason to ban such marriages.
<quoted text>
Some might even be a bit crooked. Do you tell your children that they're "too many"?
They do consult me :)

I talk to my representatives, they know where I stand.

My children agree that the world has far too many people, that is why they are limiting the number they have as well.

That is just responsibility, probably not something you teach your children.

I am not offended by plural marriages, I am offended at the way some groups use plural marriage as an excuse to commit other crimes. But that is not the subject here.

Are you taking Frankie’s position, I don’t expect you to marry your Goat without mutual consent.

I am glad you are giving up the procreation argument, that is a lost cause, already failed in court and you will fare no better with it here.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183405 Mar 15, 2013
Wring is in the air wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an institution that developed to bring straight couples together so they can then be intimate and bear offspring not out of wedlock. With partners who make a lifelong commitment to them and their potential offspring. Having young girls going around making babies without a male partner for financial and moral support is chaos. Just look at the inner ditties where up to 70% of the children born with in the minority communities are born out of wedlock, then end up on government support. Marriage did not come out of existence for same sex people to get together for life. There would be no need for this commitment.
And they gay movement to have marriage arouse so that their partners could be claimed on their medical insurance and such. It had nothing to do with love but a need to be able to get medical treatments and benefits.
The fact is gay partnership is not the same as straight partnership. Couple get married yes because they are in love, but straight couples are getting basically a certificate to bear children without being labeled illegitimate. There is no need for such a certificate or licensee for gay couples and there never will be. Straight couple don't want to be accused of living together in sin, meaning having sex without the consent of parents or their church, in case the woman was to get pregnant then have an illegitimate child out of wedlock.
A gay couple can never bear children of their partners DNA. They may bear illegitimate children, but a marriage license with their gay partner will never fix that status married or not. Fact is that a child will be the biological child of a person they did not marry! Even adoption by a second husband of a straight couple will not make a child legitimate if that child's mother was not married to the biological father.
Gays can adopt, and they can marry, but all that gets them is a piece of paper, it does not help their child to establish legitimacy only the biological parents marriage before they were conceived can do that. This is why marriage ceremonies and traditions came to be. It has nothing to do with gays and their wanting legal avenues to benefits given to married straight couples. It's the insurance policies they need to change not the marriage institution.
ALL marriages are a piece of paper recognized by a government forma legal standpoint.

Many cultures have many traditions, I don’t mind if you have yours, as long as you don’t try to stop others with theirs, and as long as you don’t try to force your traditions upon others that don’t want them as if they had the force of law.

This is the land of the free, I won’t accept your tynary

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183406 Mar 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.
Grazie

[QUOTE[
However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.
[/QUOTE]

That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.
So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.
[QUOTE]

They are not denied, rather granted in a different manner.

[QUOTE[
The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:
--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.
--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183407 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
<quoted text>
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
<quoted text>
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
<quoted text>
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
Children or the intention to have children also has no bearing as a legal requirement to be married.

Religion has no bearing

Tradition has no bearing

History has no bearing on the right to marry

none of those things can be used by law to deny someone the right to marry
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183408 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
<quoted text>
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
<quoted text>
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
<quoted text>
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
NOT have them designated, they already are, there are 18,000 legal same sex marriages in California right now, there are over 100,000 same sex marriages nationwide.

You are trying to stop other same sex couples from the same legal right that other same sex couples already have.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183409 Mar 15, 2013
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/...

But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183410 Mar 15, 2013
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/11/30/...

But Jones went further in his ruling, saying Nevada had a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as it did.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

It is "conceivable," he wrote, that if gay marriage is legalized, "a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of- wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences."

Jones added, "Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183411 Mar 15, 2013
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote."The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

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.

Oceanside Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2003 Chevy Trailblazer-CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND R... (Dec '11) Fri MLT 234
Mary Botto Artist (Aug '12) Feb 25 Matthew 32
Bright orange UFO? Feb 22 Nunya 1
Oceanside city manager resigns Feb 21 Jack Wha 1
Are there gangs in Fallbrook? (Sep '07) Feb 19 former Fallbrook ... 82
Noise levels may increase in the vicinity of Ca... Feb 17 pmc-1938 1
Help me get dripping wet I dare you (; Feb 16 Gross 4

Winter Storm Warning for San Diego County was issued at February 28 at 1:02PM PST

Oceanside Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Oceanside People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:17 pm PST