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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213640 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but i have. the lie is on your part.
How have you "proven" me wrong? What is "the lie"? Are you OK fruitcake? A little flustered?

Take your time. Ask for help. Remember! There are no stupid posts, only stupid posters like yourself.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213641 Aug 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a little short sighted...
Marriage is dying off. Usually marks the end of a society.
really? seriously? you're not just pulling that bullshit out of your ass?

please list the societies that ended and the prior marriage rates before the fall and include the sources for your information...

Sheesh!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213642 Aug 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh my arse off...funny!
YUK!YUK!YUK! Actually, if Gustavo really was in the Battle of Khe Sanh, he has my utmost respect. Aw, hell just for being a dopey jarhead he's got my respect.

He's just a little insecure and nervous since he just came out full gay and really doesn't know how to act yet. He really likes me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213643 Aug 31, 2013
SameoldStuff wrote:
<quoted text>Who are you Chef BOY R Dago?
Bigoted too. Nice! I knew it all along.

I also knew how to spell flour.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#213644 Aug 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You understood it before, and responded.
I suspect you are diverting from this;
Just the distinction, and all it's implications, of a reunion of male and female exposes at every level of measurement that SS couples are absolutely not the same.
How does it make you feel to know deep down that a PC moment of manipulation has fraudulently equated SS couples with marriage?
I've never understood... It's a stupid comment, which makes no sense grammatically.

And re: the state of same-sex marriage, I couldn't feel better!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#213645 Aug 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a little short sighted...
Marriage is dying off. Usually marks the end of a society.
PLEASE show us any shred of evidence that the state of marriage has ever had anything to do with the end of a society.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213647 Aug 31, 2013
SameoldStuff wrote:
<quoted text>We know, yer dad was Noah, Mom was Eve, you are a big time war hero. Like we care
Nope. You must be high! My Dad was Tom. My Mom was Marie. And I just did my job and came home in almost one piece. And if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to post. I'm glad you care Jizzy! Big smootch!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#213648 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes,in fact you keep saying SSM will be breaking with monogamous, conjugal marriage and that is just not true. you said it in the post i responded to...
again another lie. we have gone over the fact that there is no requirement for procreation in marriage. marriage was not created for the sole purpose of having kids, people were obviously doing that just fine prior to any marriage laws.
yes, in our society polygamy has died out. a few religious cult nuts off in the desert doing it does not a trend make..
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 institutions 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)

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“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.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213649 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but i have. the lie is on your part.
Your girlfriend looks real friendly in the picture. Is she smart? Does she know how to use capital letters? You don't. A good match! YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213650 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>
please list the societies that ended and the prior marriage rates before the fall and include the sources for your information...
Sheesh!
Please stand on your head and whistle Dixie. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Please learn how to use capital letters.~Whoop!~Whoop!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213651 Aug 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your girlfriend looks real friendly in the picture. Is she smart? Does she know how to use capital letters? You don't. A good match! YUK!YUK!YUK!
I have mobility issues with my hands so I have to basically stop typing to get a capital. i use them when they are needed for clarity. this is not a thesis i am submitting...

it is a boy rescue dog and even coming from his abused, horrid beginnings, he is probably smarter than you...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213653 Aug 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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 institutions 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)
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“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.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
yes we talked of this ancient precedent. SCOTUS just tossed out a law as society had changed so much in 40 years...

and again...yet again...marriage was not created for procreation. people were doing that just fine. it was a legal way of defining heirs, both offspring and spouses.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#213655 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes,in fact you keep saying SSM will be breaking with monogamous, conjugal marriage and that is just not true. you said it in the post i responded to...
It already has, Woody. The definition of marriage as a union of one man, and one woman, that's the monogamous part, as husband and wife, that's the conjugal part, has been rejected in several states. So why should u, or any other SSM advocate care if monogamy is legally rejected too? Do you not want to share any of that fine "marriage equality" you folks keep talking about?
again another lie. we have gone over the fact that there is no requirement for procreation in marriage. marriage was not created for the sole purpose of having kids, people were obviously doing that just fine prior to any marriage laws.
Now you're starting to sound like Splenda, aka "Not Quite Equal". There is no procreation requirement for marriage, however that does to mean marriage and procreation aren't inextricable linked. Why would they be? Sex between men and women makes babies, as numerous courts have attested to.

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.
yes, in our society polygamy has died out. a few religious cult nuts off in the desert doing it does not a trend make..
There ya go again....the ole religiphohia popping up again. Polygamy still exists....not only that there's a family or two with their own reality show. They've written a book, did the talk show circuit, even expressed support for SSM. Apparently they didn't get your memo.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#213657 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes we talked of this ancient precedent. SCOTUS just tossed out a law as society had changed so much in 40 years...
Ancient? Silly me, those cases are from the Roman Republic, not the American one......uhhh..huh.
and again...yet again...marriage was not created for procreation. people were doing that just fine. it was a legal way of defining heirs, both offspring and spouses.
It was a means of joining the two sexes....and it just so happens...sex between them makes babies. Rather odd, that despite the practice of same sex sexual behavior at various times and places, SSM, other than a few scattered historical examples, never really took root, never sustained itself in Western Civilization, let alone anywhere else. Remove the procreational element within the male female sexual union, and does it really matter who marries who, or marry at all?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#213659 Aug 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your girlfriend looks real friendly in the picture. Is she smart? Does she know how to use capital letters? You don't. A good match! YUK!YUK!YUK!
That's messed up....funny though.:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213662 Aug 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's messed up....funny though.:)
Woody's pretty tough he can take it. I am trying to inspire him.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#213663 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I have mobility issues with my hands so I have to basically stop typing to get a capital. i use them when they are needed for clarity. this is not a thesis i am submitting...
it is a boy rescue dog and even coming from his abused, horrid beginnings, he is probably smarter than you...
He's a boy dog, eh? Big boy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213664 Aug 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>really? seriously? you're not just pulling that bullshit out of your ass?
please list the societies that ended and the prior marriage rates before the fall and include the sources for your information...
Sheesh!
Here's two;

A number of countries in Europe right now. Being assimilated by immigrants.

USA, the growth of Hispanics while Caucasian families disintegrate.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213666 Aug 31, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Well, unless we are to believe that according to evolution after 200,000 years gays are just evolving. for 200,000 years they have not been able to find, create or design a society where same sex marriage was a functional element.
yes, we recently have...

facts are fun!
Gustavo

Harbor City, CA

#213667 Aug 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been there. Two tours. I never saw you.
Oh you didn't see me ... lol
You didn't see me because I was in Keh Sanh doing what I was trained to do, you were out at sea, remember you dumb FK.

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.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 17 min Bruin For Life 29,512
Where's Pacheco Hiding No Council Meetings 4 hr Greedy Pacheco 3
News Seven-acre vegetation fire burns near Anaheim H... 5 hr Rick 1
News El Monte street gang is one the area's largest,... (May '09) 6 hr La Looney DE EM H... 265
Tree Falls On Car In Whittier; 2 Kids Hurt 8 hr Joe Vhaney 3
Lozano and Garcia Want to Waste 33,000.00 Dolla... 11 hr Idiots 3
News Gang member held in shooting of 9-year-old (Oct '09) Apr 11 Talhotblond 45

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at April 18 at 5:58AM PDT

More from around the web

Rowland Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]