Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,862

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.

Read more

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183748 Mar 18, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You think it is the only reason????
C'mon XBox, use your head for something other than a hat rack. Remove the sexual procreative aspect of the marital relationship, and what else is there to generate a compelling state interest? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying? Its because they might have sex, and make a baby, named Xavier Breath....just kidding.
Well ain't it just too bad that YOU don't get to make that determination for the State?
That reason was made long before you, or I were born. Do you think its a fluke that SSM never, other than a few scattered historical examples, existed before in the West, or around the globe for that matter?
There are many other reasons: longer life, better health, reduced crime, and it promotes financial independence. And these SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN benefits occur whether or not there are children involved.
Scientifically proven on untold numerous studies conducted on husbands AND wives. There's not sufficient numbers or studies to conclusively prove such studies are applicable to SSM, male or female. If a study shows that married men live longer because of their wife, would that study be applicable to a female SSC? Male SSC? What about plural marriage? If what you are saying is true, there's no reason not to allow that. It would benefit plural marriage practioners too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183749 Mar 18, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you PLEASE learn something about logic. You make statemnts WITHOUT any proof. "...it would have appeared long before now..." is meaningless.
Why is that meaningless? Same sex sexual behavior is not new, so why hasn't it translated into a SSM culture/structure across time and place, before now?
If women should have the right to vote, why didn't our country start out that way?
The right to vote is an indiovidual right. It doesn't require a person vote in conjunction with anyone else, in order for the right to be exercised. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally sanctioned relationship, regulated, and defined, by the state. A person can claim s/he has the right to marry,(________one than one husband/wife, his/her brother or sister, etc.), but its up to the state as to whether or not such claim is valid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183750 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
And before you try to respond, we are not talking about reasons for a divorce, you can get a divorce for no reason at all ( irreconcilable differences ) all it takes is for one party to want a divorce and it can be over eating crackers in bed.
we are talking about the denial of a marriage license to a couple that both want one.
Intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a pre-requisite for them to obtain a marriage license. You wonít be able to find a single case where the state denied the license based on their intent or ability to have children.
It is a dead argument
That's what it is! Your mother and father were brother and sister. That's why you vehemently deny that procreation and marriage are linked. Of course there's no requirement to procreate in order to get married. Why would there be? Not every opposite sex couple can have, or will have coital sexual intercourse, and/or procreated, or choose to procreate. But we do know that certain pairings that might have sexual intercourse and/or procreate, are barred from obtaining a license. Ya know it makes sense, your Mom and Dad are siblings. Oh the humanity.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183751 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what it is! Your mother and father were brother and sister. That's why you vehemently deny that procreation and marriage are linked. Of course there's no requirement to procreate in order to get married. Why would there be? Not every opposite sex couple can have, or will have coital sexual intercourse, and/or procreated, or choose to procreate. But we do know that certain pairings that might have sexual intercourse and/or procreate, are barred from obtaining a license. Ya know it makes sense, your Mom and Dad are siblings. Oh the humanity.
Yes, a child always attacks the person when they cannot stand up to the argument.

I agree, you totally lost that argument... again

Do yourself a favor, donít bring that lame argument up again, it will just be trounced again.

The intent or ability to have children has NEVER been a pre-requisite to marry. You cannot find a case where a marriage license was refused because the couple that wanted to marry did not intend, or have the ability to have children.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183752 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a child always attacks the person when they cannot stand up to the argument.
I agree, you totally lost that argument... again
Do yourself a favor, donít bring that lame argument up again, it will just be trounced again.
The intent or ability to have children has NEVER been a pre-requisite to marry. You cannot find a case where a marriage license was refused because the couple that wanted to marry did not intend, or have the ability to have children.
Once again you confuse, requirement with purpose. The lack of a desire, or ability, to procreate, does not undermine, the primary functional purpose of marriage, we both know this. That is why you will not, or perhaps cannot, acknowledge this. So you continue to drone on about a lack of a requirement, because it allows you, in your own mind, some sort of platform to advocate for same sex marriage.

SSM is a virtually new western invention, largely in societies where marriage rates are declining, out of wedlock birthrates are increasing, and, cohabitiation rates are rising. But of course the same folks who scream, "biogot" at any opposition to SSM, are usually the ones who will demonstrate bigotry themselves against other alternative marriage forms, namely polygamy/plural marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183753 Mar 18, 2013
No you are confusing it

Marriage is not only about having children, if it is in your religion, fine, but no one else has to conform to your religion.

We are talking about law here, law that applies to everyone, not just people that believe in this god or that god or one book or another.

The law does not, and never has made the intent or ability to have children a pre-requisite for getting a marriage license

You want to put that on a ballot, go ahead, it will fail, but it will put in the spotlight people that have your opinion and the way you want to degrade every marriage where someone could not or chose not to have children.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183754 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
No you are confusing it
Marriage is not only about having children,
True, but that's the reason why it exists in the first place, and the compelling state interest in it. If that is not a compelling state interest, it does not matter who marries who.
if it is in your religion, fine, but no one else has to conform to your religion.
I have not mentioned religion.
We are talking about law here, law that applies to everyone, not just people that believe in this god or that god or one book or another.
True, it applies to all men and women equally, regardless of religious belief, or lack of a religious belief.
The law does not, and never has made the intent or ability to have children a pre-requisite for getting a marriage license.
That is correct, however the law, at least in 32 plus states, requires that people seeking the license be of the opposite sex. The law takes into account, although it is not a requirement, husband and wife will have sexual relations, and the marriage will be consumated. The law also presumes the husband to be the father of any children born within the martial relationship.
You want to put that on a ballot, go ahead, it will fail, but it will put in the spotlight people that have your opinion and the way you want to degrade every marriage where someone could not or chose not to have children.
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.

Even you Big D have a mother and father, as does every human on this planet. Marriage is society's means of connecting men, women, and their children. Its not a self esteem program for adults.
Shame WC SCE

La Puente, CA

#183755 Mar 18, 2013
Steve Herfert a local city councilman from West Covina, California and a employee of Southern California Edison, appears to have been a long time racists.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183756 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but that's the reason why it exists in the first place, and the compelling state interest in it. If that is not a compelling state interest, it does not matter who marries who.
<quoted text>
I have not mentioned religion.
<quoted text>
True, it applies to all men and women equally, regardless of religious belief, or lack of a religious belief.
<quoted text>
That is correct, however the law, at least in 32 plus states, requires that people seeking the license be of the opposite sex. The law takes into account, although it is not a requirement, husband and wife will have sexual relations, and the marriage will be consumated. The law also presumes the husband to be the father of any children born within the martial relationship.
<quoted text>
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.
Even you Big D have a mother and father, as does every human on this planet. Marriage is society's means of connecting men, women, and their children. Its not a self esteem program for adults.
NO, that may be the reasons your marriage exists ( 8in which case I feel very very sorry for your wife ), but it sure was not the reason for mine. You donít get to define what everyone elseís marriage is about.

I know people who married later in life, I know people that married with no intent of having children, I know people that married without the ability to have children

and you think their marriages is less than others are.. you are wrong... dead wrong, and a VAST majority of Americans will agree with me on that.

The intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get a marrage license.

I donít give a darn about tradition, I certainly donít give a darn about what you think is important. I donít have to run every marriage past you for approval, you have no authority.

Marriage is about 2 people making a promise, to become partners in their lives, it is about love, and respect and a commitment to one another.

EVERYTHING else is secondary.

Religion is unnecessary ( people of any religion or no religion are treated equally in the eyes of the law )

Tradition is unnecessary ( people can have a cerymony, or not, as they choose )

Children are not a requirement ( no law will automatically decree a dissolution of a marriage based on intent or ability to have children, one of the parties has to WANT a divorce, and then any reason works, including eating crackers in bed )
Shame WC SCE

La Puente, CA

#183757 Mar 18, 2013
Doesn't get anybetter than the racist city councilmember known as Steve Herfert of West Covina, California.

Get off the city council you fool.

And Southern California Edison employed him too.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183758 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't attack anyone for their position on gay marriage.
That's obvious BS. Why even bother?
akpilot wrote:
I know that you feel attacked because I point out your ignorance, but that has nothing to do with your position on this issue.
In fact, it is the side of me that is in favor of same sex marriage that wishes you would shut up, you certainly aren't helping the cause with your ignorant nonsense.
LOL. There you go again!
I don't wish you'd shut up, I like laughing at you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183759 Mar 18, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your answer to your inability to back up your accusations with actual fact?
You really are a mental midget, I wouldn't be surprised if you have a post it note on your monitor reminding yourself to breath.
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183760 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, when I want to understand the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment I should come to Rose for an explanation and not Jacob Howard, Lyman Trumbull, John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry Deming, Benjamin G. Brown, Ignatius Donnelly etc..
My guess- you have never heard of any of those people.
You are a funny b!tch!
Thanks for the laughs.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183761 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself you might know how many of them would have felt.
It doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court made the decision.
akpilot wrote:
"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!"-- James Madison
"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."-- George Mason
"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."-- George Washington
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence."-- John Adams
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."--John Jay
Now educate yourself so you can stop looking so damn stupid.
Loving v VA was about marriage, not slavery. You really should educate yourself, and not just copy/paste.
LOL @ you!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183762 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your argument isn't with me, take it up with MSNBC.
Second, everyone knows you have no argument when you resurrect Hitler and make ridiculous assertions about what I believe (slander).
Third, any true believer knows that love and truth are inseparable in the Christian faith. Again, if you were a professional social worker, you would understand the impact of denial.
Fourth, leave marriage and children alone. Imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will not fix your unhappiness.
Smile.
One thing Topix has taught me is Christianity = hate. You are one of the, Oooops, I was going to say people but people only have 46 chromosomes. You are one of those who show that it's pure hate.
Do you think you should have been aborted?
Did god make a mistake making you?
LOL!
:)

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183763 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally, things that aren't normal, are abnormal.
You mean like impostor "people" who have two different sets of tissue?
KiMare wrote:
This is why scientists are trying to understand homosexuality. It is also why no culture in human history has fully accepted homosexuality as normal.
No culture in human history has fully accepted defective freaks like you as normal. Many were killed, or just left to die.
:)
KiMare wrote:
How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that???
Snicker.
How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that, defect???
:)

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183764 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
No you are confusing it
Marriage is not only about having children, if it is in your religion, fine, but no one else has to conform to your religion.
We are talking about law here, law that applies to everyone, not just people that believe in this god or that god or one book or another.
The law does not, and never has made the intent or ability to have children a pre-requisite for getting a marriage license
You want to put that on a ballot, go ahead, it will fail, but it will put in the spotlight people that have your opinion and the way you want to degrade every marriage where someone could not or chose not to have children.
Pietro Armando won't deal with the issues you bring up, and just plays word games, that's why I stopped replying to him.
Harriette VVVoom

Sonoma, CA

#183765 Mar 18, 2013
Well shucks. The divine Sarah has shown us the way again and this time maybe we'll have the lugknuts to listen. She pointed out that Hugo Chavez and Kim from N. Korea are one and the same and that Karl Rove and she are no longer romantically but now only physically involved since he became involved in the election of the popes and the surrounding scandal. She shows us how to react to this by pointing out the great land and business opportunities in Cyprus and the market there for retrieved gold taken from rest home residents here for payment of the upcharges on their freeloading depenz accounts. She winsomely points the way to shipping retirees to Turkey and Wazikistan where they can be warehoused for far less moolah for far less time. She also mentions the bishops collection of souvenir evanescent jockstraps but I dont want to go there. You go there, says she..and I will vote for her again to be Governor for a full term, or more parts thereof.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183766 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, that may be the reasons your marriage exists ( 8in which case I feel very very sorry for your wife ),
Actually your marriage exists for the same reason, as does mine. There are two sexes, human reproduction is sexual, and our society, as have many across the globe, throughout time and place, figured this out. As to the feeling sorry part, you response seems to indicate, you feel wives are interchangeable with men. Personally my wife is all woman, but if some like 'em....
but it sure was not the reason for mine. You donít get to define what everyone elseís marriage is about.
The states does that, at least legally. I have every right to advocate for monogamous conjugal marriage as the legal definition, as do you monogamous two person model regardless of gender composition, and polygamists also have the right to advocate for their definition.
I know people who married later in life, I know people that married with no intent of having children, I know people that married without the ability to have children
What a coincidence, so do I. I also know people whose mother and father were not only married, but had sex to create them.
and you think their marriages is less than others are.. you are wrong... dead wrong, and a VAST majority of Americans will agree with me on that.
Actually, Big Denial, I don't, stated just that. Let's go to the audio tape:
Pietro Armando said:
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.
The intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get a marrage license.
Silly rabbit, why the heck would it have to be a requirement? Do you think married couples won't have sex? That there won't be any "oops" babies? As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up". That's not tradition, that's good old fashioned facts of life.
I donít give a darn about tradition,
Not any tradition? Even the tradition that says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"?
I certainly donít give a darn about what you think is important.
That's because I won't climb the mountain to seek out your wisdom. I'm sure you have enough politicians, and judges doing that already.
I donít have to run every marriage past you for approval, you have no authority.
Nor do you sparky, but thanks for trying.
Marriage is about 2 people making a promise, to become partners in their lives, it is about love, and respect and a commitment to one another.
Is that on the marriage license? Are THOSE pre-requisites? Are they legal requirements? Besides, marriage has always been about "2 people", polygamy is a valid form of marriage world wide, and its practiced in this country, albeit without legal recognition.
Tradition is unnecessary ( people can have a cerymony, or not, as they choose )
Who said anything about a ceremony?
Children are not a requirement ( no law will automatically decree a dissolution of a marriage based on intent or ability to have children, one of the parties has to WANT a divorce, and then any reason works, including eating crackers in bed )
Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183767 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
True, but they have said procreation is the reason marriage either exists, or that the compelling state interest. Here's one example.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

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.

Patterson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who came up with the names of the Streets in Pa... Feb '15 Chanate 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande Feb '15 Ricky1 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande Feb '15 Ricky1 1
News Diablo Grande closes course, defaults on loan (Feb '08) Feb '15 Ricky1 25
Turlock Woman Critical after being Shot by Ex-H... Jan '15 Angelica Campos 2
do not move to the city of patterson!!!!!!!!!!!... (Apr '10) Nov '14 yo mama 7
News Mother 'Person Of Interest' In Kayla Reed Slaying (Nov '07) Nov '14 gg 78
More from around the web

Patterson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]