Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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

#192830 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D*..*,
No, You may not argue with me.
There is no argument, there is a fact that you are ignorant of, that’s why there is no point to it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192831 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no argument, there is a fact that you are ignorant of, that’s why there is no point to it.
Wha?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192832 May 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."
--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country.
Perhaps it will. I don't deny it's a possibility
I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?
Right now I say 30 or so state constitutional amendments.
You said: "That is true, however the law recognizes the sexual nature of the male female relationship, and its procreative potential."
--The law does recognize the sexual nature of male/female relationships and its procreative potential, however marriage IS NOT based solely on that potential.
True, however if not for the fact that human reproduction is sexual, would marriage exist as we knowi it. Would there be a need for marriage at all.
There isn't a marriage license in the country that deals with procreation.
Uhhhhhh....okay.
Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows.
Annnnnnnd why would they have to be?
Laws that deal with parental issues are separate from laws that deal with marriage.
Are you arguing that procreation and marriage are not linked legal? Are there not court cases that mention the link? Presumption of paternity?
You said: "The motivations as to why people marry does not change the state's recognition of marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife, and it's potential to procreate. The state has a vested interest in privileging that relationship above all others for that reason."
--As you pointed out earlier, this is only the case in 32 states.
Not necessarily. So because some states have dropped the opposite sex requirement, the state's interest in marital procreation evaporates?
And I firmly disagree that the state has a vested interest in privileging a male/female relationship above all others.
Why not? It has for all of this nation's history.
If states had a vested interest in protecting a male/female relationship based on its ability to procreate, then states would MANDATE that parents be married before having children.
Why not ban premarital sex as well. Perhaps the state should MANDATE people be married before they have sex. That way if sexual intcourse results in conception, the man and woman will already be married.
We both know that states do not mandate that a child's biological parents must be married in order to have children. You don't even have to be married to adopt children.
One does not have to be married in order to have sex either, so what's your point?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192833 May 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "A couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. Couples can be of mixed orientation. A man cannot "have" a child, he can father a child, or adopt a child. A woman who uses ART, still must involve the opposite sex."
--But what does this have to do with marriage? Even your comment above doesn't indicate that couples MUST be married in order to do these things. In fact, states have set up very specific processes for those couples who have children (by accident or intention) who do not wish to become married. They set up visitation schedules, child support schedules, insurance coverage, education issues, etc.--all for unmarried parents.
So that means it's not in the state's best interest if the biological parents of the child are not married? Simply because the state has a procedure for dealing with unmarried parents doesn't not mean the state is discouraging the biological parents from marrying.
--Marriage IS NOT necessary for the procreation or rearing of children. This cannot be emphasized enough.
Emphasized by who? SSMers who want to further disconnect procreation from marriage? Adult s who as who were born out of wedlock?
If states believed that only married couples should have children--if states believed that children were of such great importance to marriage--then unmarried couples would be wholeheartedly discouraged from having children
How would the state do that?
. States would require that unmarried parents be married as soon as possible, even if they did not wish to be married. That's not how things work.
At one time societal pressure performed that function.....shotgun marriages.
--Finally, you must know that your "consummation argument" is very flimsy. Firstly, not all states or jurisdiction have a "consummation law". Secondly, "consummation" does not mean penile/vaginal penetration--any type of sexual activity (oral, tactile, etc.) can be defined as "sex".
Seriously Vee Vee....think about it.
And finally, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a case where a marriage has been annulled due to lack of "consummation"
Never the less it is legal grounds upon which to annul a marriage. Thus illustrating another difference between conjugal, husband and wife, marriage and SSM.
. Same-gender couples are capable of consummation.
What specific acts would constitute same sex "consummation"?
. I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you attempted to argue that same-gender couples cannot marry simply because they do not engage in an activity that you would define as "consummation".
I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you claimed a SSC could "consummate" in the same manner as an opposite sex couple, and as "consummation" is commonly understood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05...
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#192834 May 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The tone of your previous posts have led me to believe that you think that gay people must agree with gay scientists, regardless of what they say.
Umm, science is science, it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

You can disagree with gravity all day long, you are still gonna hit the ground when you jump off the cliff.

The fact that he was homosexual was simply an added bonus, you are just pissed that I didn't pick someone you could claim had a bias agenda.
Mahmoud Abdullah

Sacramento, CA

#192837 May 21, 2013
U shood not have gay marrij!! Being gay is a crime in my cuntry, becuz its bad to be gay. If u marry man and man that is a bad thing to have!! U SHOOD NOT DO BAD THINGS!!!! Plus also it is not rite to be gay, I am not gay so y r u?? If woman cum up to u and ask for marrij u will have to explain her familee y u tell no to her. Pleez stop being gay and then have marrij!! Pleez lisin to what I tell u I no what Im talk about ok my frend. So next time if u think about gay things dont do it and dont be gay and then marrij.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192839 May 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So that means it's not in the state's best interest if the biological parents of the child are not married? Simply because the state has a procedure for dealing with unmarried parents doesn't not mean the state is discouraging the biological parents from marrying.
<quoted text>
Emphasized by who? SSMers who want to further disconnect procreation from marriage? Adult s who as who were born out of wedlock?
<quoted text>
How would the state do that?
<quoted text>
At one time societal pressure performed that function.....shotgun marriages.
<quoted text>
Seriously Vee Vee....think about it.
<quoted text>
Never the less it is legal grounds upon which to annul a marriage. Thus illustrating another difference between conjugal, husband and wife, marriage and SSM.
<quoted text>
What specific acts would constitute same sex "consummation"?
<quoted text>
I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you claimed a SSC could "consummate" in the same manner as an opposite sex couple, and as "consummation" is commonly understood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05...
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.
Excellent posts!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192840 May 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, science is science, it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.
You can disagree with gravity all day long, you are still gonna hit the ground when you jump off the cliff.
The fact that he was homosexual was simply an added bonus, you are just pissed that I didn't pick someone you could claim had a bias agenda.
Bingo!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192841 May 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, science is science, it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.
You can disagree with gravity all day long, you are still gonna hit the ground when you jump off the cliff.
The fact that he was homosexual was simply an added bonus, you are just pissed that I didn't pick someone you could claim had a bias agenda.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of scientists (doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, geneticists, biologists, etc.) who have arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is a natural and normal characteristic of human sexual expression are straight.

Do they have a bias?

Just because a gay scientists who has extensively studied sexuality in HUMANS does not mean that he is an expert when it comes to the study of sexuality in ANIMALS.

The same is true with a bioethicist who makes a similar comment.

The bottom line is that NO ONE knows why there is SSSB in the animal kingdom. We even don't know why there is homosexuality in mankind. And understanding human behavior is MUCH easier than understanding behavior in animals.

Scientists studying humans can ask questions and get feedback from their subjects. Studying animals requires human scientists to understand a subject that cannot communicate with them.

Anyone who says that they understand why animals participate in SSSB is stating an OPINION. There simply have not been any conclusive studies that explain this phenomenon.
honest person

Tempe, AZ

#192843 May 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text> We even don't know why there is homosexuality in mankind.
The main reason is to ease the population pressures. The secondary reason is that some people are desperate faddists. And then there are the dangerous mental defectives, the recruiters, the GLSEN types and the pinkos who just want to see Civilization fail.

Why are homosexuals so intellectually dishonest?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192844 May 22, 2013
Oy vey.
Passed

Covina, CA

#192845 May 22, 2013
Fifteen states have already passed this, onward and upward.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192846 May 22, 2013
Passed wrote:
Fifteen states have already passed this, onward and upward.
That's what she said.
BB pants

Covina, CA

#192847 May 22, 2013
Don't worry about it Frankie Rozzitories, the people with the big boy pants are handling it, so go away now.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#192848 May 22, 2013
BB pants wrote:
Don't worry about it Frankie Rozzitories, the people with the big boy pants are handling it, so go away now.
Aren't you one of those global warming zit grrrrls who believes in drowning polar bears??
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192849 May 22, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you one of those global warming zit grrrrls who believes in drowning polar bears??
Yes. Covina is one of the "it's cold because it's warm" dummies.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#192850 May 22, 2013
The Gay cult community will not take down California.
drowning polar bear

Pulaski, TN

#192851 May 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Covina is one of the "it's cold because it's warm" dummies.
I make ice cubes in the microwave oven. Don't you?

And just how can you "cook" a frozen pizza in an oven?

Capitalists are crazy! Save the baby seals! Vote for Castro!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192852 May 22, 2013
Bruno wrote:
The Gay cult community will not take down California.
Aw SHUDDUP Bruno you silly jackass. You're second rate.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192854 May 22, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Wait, you have the nerve to call Bruno second class. LOL boy you are just a wannabe troll.
Yes, I can hardly wait until the day I become a full fledged troll like you Jizzy.

What a dope!

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.

Soquel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
DBS/TMC is still stalking 3 min Nolseriuvca 12
Santa Cruz council expands stay-away orders for... 26 min petra pendeja 37
Becky Johnson: The Grinch Who Stole Thanksgiving 1 hr Get a job ColbyLOSER 18
SV Teacher "Buzz" still stalking topix users (Jan '14) 5 hr McGargles 645
Santa Cruz County unemployment 6.4 percent in O... 5 hr Get a job ColbyLOSER 7
On the 41st day of X-mas (DBS version) (Feb '14) 5 hr DBS 8
Winter Birds--Santa Cruz 2014 11 hr Rainy day 1
Soquel Dating
Find my Match

Soquel People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Soquel News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Soquel

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:26 pm PST