Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183731 Mar 18, 2013
RicardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.
Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
lol..that's why I am registered so you trolls will be exposed. Did I hurt your feelings that much? lol

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183732 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fk the majority of society. The Constitution promises all equal rights. Do you understand that so far? And you morons keep saying it's just about "the benefits and insurance benefits". Well, if that were the case, gay people would just marry a friend of the opposite sex.
No it doesn't. If it did, both native born, and naturalized, citizens would be eligible to run for president. That is one example.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183733 Mar 18, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't answer my question. Do you think reproduction is the ONE and ONLY State interest in marriage?
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
Horse hills

La Puente, CA

#183734 Mar 18, 2013
Did I mention thatSteve Herfert of West Covina, California city councilman who used offensive RACISTS language live during a Feburary 05, 2013 city council meeting is a life long hardcore GOP, Republican an Tea Party Member.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183735 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
We have a already been over this, you already lost

Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.

There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.

You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Deficiets

La Puente, CA

#183736 Mar 18, 2013
Sad but true, the GOP, Republican and Tea Party brats are sulking in a dark corner, because the voters nation wide have rejected there racists form of government.

The vast majority of Republican lawmakers have signed a national no-new-taxes pledge and aren't carrying major revenue-raising measures.

What say you West Covian city counciman Steve Herfert and Mike Touhey along witht he SGVtribune.com and George Ogden of the sgvexamainer.com
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183737 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about "other people's sexuality", but rather what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Legally redefining marriage undermines that. If SSM was an integral part of human societal organization and structure it would have appeared long before now, and would have deep sustained historical roots. It does not. It does demonstrate the extent to which marriage has declined both in the U.S., and in the West.
Will you PLEASE learn something about logic. You make statemnts WITHOUT any proof. "...it would have appeared long before now..." is meaningless. If women should have the right to vote, why didn't our country start out that way?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183738 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
You think it is the only reason???? Well ain't it just too bad that YOU don't get to make that determination for the State? 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183740 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a already been over this, you already lost
Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
yeah yeah

AOL

#183741 Mar 18, 2013
ok now lets legalize cannabis. nationwide!

chéck one two thréé
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183742 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
<quoted text>
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
<quoted text>
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
I already have kid

No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.

dead argument

Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage

point... set and match... that argument is dead

It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.

But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183743 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have kid
Ya did? I must have blinked.
No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.
dead argument
Silly Big D, you're confusing lack of a requirement with purpose. Its understandable, for you to admit it would undermine your whole argument. So you cling the this notion that as along as procreation is not required, it must not be about procreation.

If procreation is not an issue, why prohibit brother and sister from marrying? Oh I know, beacuse they might have sex, AND, create a child, who grows up, and posts on internet fourms under the moniker of "Big D". Now THAT makes sense.
Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage
point... set and match... that argument is dead
It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.
But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.
Thatta boy, you keep that going, I'm sure all those court cases specifically linking marriage and procreation, are just meaningless to the all great and powerful Big D. It must be lonely up on that mountain....I'm sure there's the occasionally sheep that happens along to keep you company.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183744 Mar 18, 2013
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 won’t 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
Deficiets

La Puente, CA

#183745 Mar 18, 2013
Did I mention that Steve Herfert of West Covina, California city councilman who used offensive RACISTS language live during a Feburary 05, 2013 city council meeting and is a life long hardcore GOP, Republican an Tea Party Member.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183746 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya did? I must have blinked.
<quoted text>
Silly Big D, you're confusing lack of a requirement with purpose. Its understandable, for you to admit it would undermine your whole argument. So you cling the this notion that as along as procreation is not required, it must not be about procreation.
If procreation is not an issue, why prohibit brother and sister from marrying? Oh I know, beacuse they might have sex, AND, create a child, who grows up, and posts on internet fourms under the moniker of "Big D". Now THAT makes sense.
<quoted text>
Thatta boy, you keep that going, I'm sure all those court cases specifically linking marriage and procreation, are just meaningless to the all great and powerful Big D. It must be lonely up on that mountain....I'm sure there's the occasionally sheep that happens along to keep you company.
I don’t lack anything, and you cannot find one case where a state refused a marriage license to a couple that both wanted one based on their intent or ability to have children.

You know you cannot win the argument ( as it is crystal clear to anyone ) so you go onto personal attacks.

It is easy to tell when you have one an argument with a child, they cannot stand up to what you say, so they go after either how you say it, or you personally.

I agree, the argument is over and done.

Don’t worry I will be here to remind you any time you use that incredibly lame argument

“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 won’t 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, don’t 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, don’t 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.

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.

San Joaquin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Woman Dies After Being Hit by Deputy's Patrol Car (Jun '12) Oct '14 ThinksTooMuch 2
Unethical CEO at United Health Centers Oct '14 Che 1
Library Bookshelf: Cozy up with 3 new mystery n... Oct '14 bookworm1986 1
A 34 year old female teacher at Kerman High Sch... (Nov '09) Sep '14 Thisplanetisdoomed 17
REACHing everyone is goal of Stockton activist Sep '14 Zombie Corpse Rental 1
Episcopal dispute at a glance (May '14) Jun '14 Joe DeCaro 76
Michelle Hyde (May '14) May '14 Virginia 1

Freeze Warning for Fresno County was issued at December 26 at 10:36PM PST

San Joaquin Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

San Joaquin People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

San Joaquin News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in San Joaquin

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:09 am PST