Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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
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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213668 Aug 31, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>This is not true at all. You missed it altogether. All SCOTUS said was that on this day and this day alone, we have decided to leave the decision in the hands of the states and if the states so decide to allow same sex marriage then we will not limit that marriage by denying the benefits of marriage to those marriages. SCOTUS further asserted that if all 50 states decide to reject this new and untested idea of people of the same sex marrying, we will not interfere in that, as we have no intentions to force it one way or the other.
As for the state interest in marriages it has always primarily been the procreation issue, which involves divorce and care for the offspring. It also has been structure, and without this structure then society falls apart. Men have always went to war with the idea that they are protecting and preserving the lives of the wives,children and family. If you remove this idea, then men are not apt to die for a cause foreign to family.
Did you ever watch the movie 'Private Ryan'? It was based on a true story, and the idea was that a mother should never lose all of her children in war when the primary idea is to preserve and protect the family.
ummm...wow! gays have been in the military since recoreded history. your argument was proven wrong millenia before you were told to parrot it.

even Alexander the Great, one of the greatest conquerers and rulers of all time was gay...

hmmm...you didnt think that one out well, did you?
Gustavo

Harbor City, CA

#213669 Aug 31, 2013
Khe Sanh

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213670 Aug 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ancient? Silly me, those cases are from the Roman Republic, not the American one......uhhh..huh.
<quoted text>
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?
yes, marriage still matters. and no=one is taking heterosexual marriage out of the picture, just extending that basic civil right to all our citizens...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#213671 Aug 31, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>I have no idea what you are talking about. Obama never marched with King and his gay ideology was not part of the march. If Obama wants gay votes and if Sinclair is telling the truth, Obama is keeping his gay options open. Hitler led a country and he said a lot about Jews, that does not make it right. Obama does not have the pedigree to add to King's speech.
Forty years ago you were not called disordered, liar, you were diagnosed with a disorder and you still are. Unless a gay is interviewing for a gay porn job, he does not need to share his bedroom sex life at a job, interview or in the military. It is all about gay propaganda BS.
It is legal for a person to go to bars on weekends and get drunk and passed out all weekend. It is also stupid for him to share that at an interview.
You think we are supposed to accept two men having sex, but impeach Bill Clinton for having extra sex. Wrong.
--Obama was one of the primary speakers at the anniversary. And if you'll have a look at the recording of his speech you'll find that after he made the remark I cited the crowd ERUPTED in applause.

--WTF does Obama have to do with Hitler? Did Obama kill 6 million people during his first term? Did he march on Europe to expand Germany? Such a stupid comment...

--PLEASE show me where homosexuals are considered disordered in the U.S.

--Gays don't share their sex lives during an interview. Why do people like you always go there? However, if a gay person shares information about a spouse, an upcoming wedding, puts a photo of him/herself on their desk along with their partner--any of that can result in a job loss. And it's perfectly legal in many locations. That shit has got to stop.

--You have no choice but to accept two men or two women having sex. It's perfectly legal in this country. I hope the image of two men having sex runs through your mind repeatedly. I hope it makes you ill. And I hope that one of your kids or grandkids is gay. I hope you look at him and cannot get the picture of him out of your head of him biting a pillow and screaming in ecstasy as his gay partner plows the hell out of him. It would only be fitting...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#213672 Aug 31, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, and anthropologist have always said different. I guess since you say so, we must take your word over anthropologist who say that marriage is the staple of civilization, you know man and woman. Kinda ties humans altogether in one complete unity.
and how does a SSM not tie humans together in one complete unity?
Gustavo

Harbor City, CA

#213673 Aug 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
When I was in uniform one time in San Diego I was in the mens room of the bus station opening my 13 buttons to take a leak when Gustavo the jarheaded marine stepped up at the next urinal right next to me (of course) and said "I'm glad I'm not a sailor, it's hard for squids to find their dicks."
I said "If I was a marine it would be easy, I'd just take off my hat."
Whoop!~Whoop!
You make no sense at all you homo

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
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr do it here 16,011
Topix is Against the First Amendment 14 hr Jimmy 15
How would you like to/be proposed? 14 hr Jimmy 2
Apple CEO Cook Goes From Record Sales to IPhone... Mon Independent 3
pro lifers are bigoted Mon Independent 2
US stocks start lower Sun William Knight 54
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sep 28 No Time for Tea 5,084

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Jobs

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]