Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

KeS

Modesto, CA

#192814 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong there are 18,000 legally married and legally recognized same sex marriages in California today.
They did not revoke any marriages, that would have been a legal nightmare.
Big D*..*,

I won in the majority of Blue eyes, now Prop.*8* rules and the former things that have now passed away are made anew with the revocation of all prior okie dokies.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192815 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D*..*,
I won in the majority of Blue eyes, now Prop.*8* rules and the former things that have now passed away are made anew with the revocation of all prior okie dokies.
Everyone understands now that you are unaware of the fact

You donít have to keep repeating it, this isnít an argument.

They are recognized by the state, that is not a question. You are unaware they are recognized, we got that.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192816 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think your opinion is law, it is not.
California currently recognizes 18,000 same sex couples, if you didnít know that before... go look it up, it does.
No marriages were revoked, they just stopped issuing new licenses
They specifically did not revoke old licenses
I am not giving you an opinion; I am telling you a fact
Whether you are ignorant of the fact or not, does not change the fact
Big D*..*.,

My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".
Buddy L

Covina, CA

#192817 May 21, 2013
Dick Chaney is an completeidiot and he can't shoot straight either.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192818 May 21, 2013
Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.
The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 4Ė3 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Despite the brevity of Proposition 22 (it added only fourteen words to the Family Code) its effect provoked debate long after its passage. In November 2008 California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192819 May 21, 2013
Buddy L wrote:
Dick Chaney is an completeidiot and he can't shoot straight either.
You spelled his name wrong Mr. Competent.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#192820 May 21, 2013
fr KeS:

...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<

Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.

Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.

Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
Mike the Pike

Glenn, CA

#192821 May 21, 2013
Y'all still pining away for buttpirates rights? what a waste of time and energy. When the muslims take over, gay marriage will end up where it rightfully belongs, in the septic tank of historically stupid ideas! Even the animals know better!
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192822 May 21, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr KeS:
...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<
Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.
Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.
Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
Not to worry I won't flash your party. Accept that your engagement is sick. Ask Sodom And Gomorrah. Oh, that's right, God destroyed them.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192823 May 21, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr KeS:
...My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".<
Your "law" is just an opinion, plain and simple. Prop H8 was overturned, and you KNOW it.
Quit whining, and move to a different place if you disagree with Marriage Equality. I hear Iran, Saudi Arabia, or certain Southern states would LOVE to have you as a citizen.
Oh, and just an fyi: my WIFE (we are a happily-married lesbian FAMILY) and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next month. Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
My disagreement is with the overturning of the Ban against SSM"s.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192824 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone understands now that you are unaware of the fact
You donít have to keep repeating it, this isnít an argument.
They are recognized by the state, that is not a question. You are unaware they are recognized, we got that.
Big D*..*,
No, You may not argue with me.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192825 May 21, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
:O)!
Could it get any better?
Yes, also a hermaphrodite with a non-functioning vagina, but I make up for it with three nipples.

SMile.
Mike the Pike

Glenn, CA

#192826 May 21, 2013
The people spoke loud and clear with their votes but A judge said "NO" ! We will allow .0001% of the population to override the desires of the rest of the state. What is wrong with this picture?

Even the animals know better!
Shooters

Covina, CA

#192827 May 21, 2013
The president of a New York police union defended an officer who accidentally (murdered) killed a Hofstra University student during a standoff with an armed intruder.
Slogan Watch

Tempe, AZ

#192828 May 21, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
Sorry, you're NOT invited to the celebration.
It's not discrimination when WE do it!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192829 May 21, 2013
Shooters wrote:
The president of a New York police union defended an officer who accidentally (murdered) killed a Hofstra University student during a standoff with an armed intruder.
Stupid trigger happy coward cop.
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, thatís 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, thatís 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 Ė 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.

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man Drags Unconscious Pit Bull Down Sidewalk Thu JanineP 1
Heard Christian Garza KO'd Zeke Garcia Wed TKO 2
Andy Capp's Tavern 1972-1975 (Nov '12) Sep 2 Steve Byers 6
Review: Cheap Movers In Redwood City Aug 31 nita singler 1
topix forum misused (May '09) Aug 28 Billy Rawhide 2
massive chinese furniture web-site and relative... Aug 27 jimheeren 1
News Advances Against Chronic Pain (Sep '12) Aug 26 Ambct617 20
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages