Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,148

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

#196253 Jun 15, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Just so you know you are a little aquirt ... LMAO
WTF is an "aquirt" you illiterate moron?... LMAO

YUK!YUK!YUK! Illiterate moron. Too funny!
In the mean time

Monrovia, CA

#196254 Jun 15, 2013
Just after the cheap and easy criminals from North Korea dashed talks with South Korea over a trivial issue, now they want to have high level talks with the USA.

North Korea has lost face with South Korea, the little criminals in the North had better get there house in order, the South is not a easy push over.

If the south wanted they could clean the North's clock and be back home for dinner the same day!

North Korea should be made to apologize to both the South Korean's and American governments as well as the world.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#196257 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
There need not be a state interest to grant the right to marry or "redefine" marriage. A state interest comes up when a state tried to deny a right. It is part of the judicial level of review called strict scrutiny. You've just aired your ignorance of the law once again.
<quoted text>
And, unless restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a compelling state interest, those constitutional provisions are unconstitutional under the federal constitution. This isn't a difficult concept.
<quoted text>
They have no merits, and they are in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
<quoted text>
Neither of which rises to the level of a compelling state interest. Does the marriage of an infertile heterosexual couple equal that of a fertile heterosexual couple? Your point is disingenuous at best.
<quoted text>
Simple, it isn't about outcomes, it is about protection of the law. You seem to be confusing this simple issue.
<quoted text>
There aren't gay people? It's pretty much a fact that gay people exist, kiddo.
<quoted text>
You've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I think you are incapable of offing any such interest.
<quoted text>
Sure there is, namely to fulfill the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
I wonder what you are going to do later this month when the US Supreme Court rules against your position?
<quoted text>
And they market it as a burger. Your argument on this point was utterly inept. Then again, all of your arguments are utterly inept, and unsupported by fact, law, or reason.
I gotta say I have no horse in this race. I'm not gay, but I do like to see some of the debates on this thread. Pietro Armando u have to admit, at least on some level, that you're getting totally owned by this guy. He's making u look pretty bad son, and you're exposing yourself as an ignorant bigot. I know people who hide behind their computers rarely, if ever, admit defeat...but dude come on, he's waxing the floor with u.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#196258 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Even same sex atheists! Like three hot young twinks as long as they're consenting adults! Hubba Hubba! Bet you like equality for them even if you don't like it for people you hate.
But keep your lurid sexual fantasies out of this. We're trying to talk marriage equality.
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....

my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....

your bigotry is showing

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196259 Jun 15, 2013
Jayzbird58 Buster wrote:
<quoted text>You really are confused, but that is okay, it is conditional.
Yes, there is no compelling state interest in redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
Actually, the 14th Amendment has already been upheld to defend the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Actually, there are no gay people, just humans who choose to have varies forms of sex, such as with the same sex, children and animals.
In order to make an argument of denying same sex marriages, you must go back to the point in the US where it existed then it was taken away.
Calling Chester Cheetah...your friend lides has just been served. Owned by Jayzbird58 Buster.
Not To Bright Are You

Toronto, Canada

#196260 Jun 15, 2013
Jayzbird58 Buster wrote:
<quoted text>You really are confused, but that is okay, it is conditional.
Yes, there is no compelling state interest in redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
Actually, the 14th Amendment has already been upheld to defend the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Actually, there are no gay people, just humans who choose to have varies forms of sex, such as with the same sex, children and animals.
In order to make an argument of denying same sex marriages, you must go back to the point in the US where it existed then it was taken away.
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196261 Jun 15, 2013
Chester Hester wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks a lot, now I'm craving cheetos and fruit loops, and I have neither one here.
Got the munches? You not involved with Mary Jane, are you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196262 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....
my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....
your bigotry is showing
And I answered your question dummy but you're slow so I'll do it again. Of course she can!(Your paranoia is showing.)

Good that you asked for help. Remember! There are no dumb posts. Only dumb-asses such as yourself.

P.S. I support marriage equality and you do not. Who's the bigot?

OK Fruitloops. Hope that helped.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196263 Jun 15, 2013
Not To Bright Are You wrote:
<quoted text>
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?
It never should have been given in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo... (2000)

Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary".[4] While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married".[5] That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.
When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary" [italics added].[6]
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, Section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere. This stated that a "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state".[7] Advocates of Proposition 22 described Section 308 as a "loophole", apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[8]
To address this, Proposition 22 did not reword the existing provisions of the Family Code, but added to them the declaration that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".[9] The official citation of Proposition 22, the "California Defense of Marriage Act", is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196264 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....
That would be polygyny. Along with monogamy, the most common form of marriage throughout human history.
my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....
That would be polyandry. Rather rare among human societies. Of those that did, or do practice it, it's common for brothers to marry one woman. That way any children born are related to the other men.
How many women would actually want more than one husband? Oh her aching back.
your bigotry is showing
As is your ignorance. But ya learn something new everyday.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#196265 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.
The issue is about legal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples have and homosexual couples don't. In fact the case before the SOTUS involves a homosexual couple and the huge tax burden ($400K) had to pay after her partner of some 40 years died, something a heterosexual couple would not be subjected to.

so pray tell, PLEASE DO TELL ME, WHAT STATE INTEREST IS THERE IN DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN??
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.
Geesh, what a load of crap. If having children and procreation were the only reason for marriage, than millions of heterosexuals wouldn'yt marry.

There are couples where one partner is infertile
There are many seniors who marry and are incapable of having children any more
and then there are just couples who marry and do not intend on having children...
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

It's always been about how we, as a society, define marriage. Even gay folks recognize the importance of maintaining marriage, legally, as a male female union, while granting SSCs legal protections.
<quoted text>
Even judges, who offer, or render opinions?
exactly its about who we are as a society. Do we treat everyone equally?

or do we let some religious sects dictate their religious beliefs into our laws?

pray tell again I ask you, give me one logical reason for restricting marriage between one man and one woman. what state interest is served?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196266 Jun 15, 2013
Not To Bright Are You wrote:
<quoted text>
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?
Aw shuddup Bill you dopey jackass! What a dumb post.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196267 Jun 15, 2013
Not To Bright Are You wrote:
<quoted text>
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?
*too

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196268 Jun 15, 2013
Chester Hester wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotta say I have no horse in this race. I'm not gay, but I do like to see some of the debates on this thread. Pietro Armando u have to admit, at least on some level, that you're getting totally owned by this guy. He's making u look pretty bad son, and you're exposing yourself as an ignorant bigot. I know people who hide behind their computers rarely, if ever, admit defeat...but dude come on, he's waxing the floor with u.
Serious Chester, you should get out more. So it's "bigotry" to advocate that marriage, as a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife, remain just that, legally? Is that want they teach in reeducation camps? If gay people, share the same sentiment as I do, and there are those who do, are they "bigots" too? How does that work, one is only a bigot, if one opposes redefining marriage and is not gay? But is one is gay and opposes redefining marriage, they're not a bigot? There is very confusing. Oh well off to the "reeducation camp".

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#196269 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And I answered your question dummy but you're slow so I'll do it again. Of course she can!(Your paranoia is showing.)
Good that you asked for help. Remember! There are no dumb posts. Only dumb-asses such as yourself.
P.S. I support marriage equality and you do not. Who's the bigot?
OK Fruitloops. Hope that helped.
Frankie frankie, so I see you suffer dementia....

here's your post, it does seem you interpreted my post as refering to a homosexual polygamist relationship and not a woman having multiple husbands...

Frankie's post

"Yes. Even same sex atheists! Like three hot young twinks as long as they're consenting adults! Hubba Hubba! Bet you like equality for them even if you don't like it for people you hate.

But keep your lurid sexual fantasies out of this. We're trying to talk marriage equality."

like you said, there are only dumb posters who can't even remember what they posted
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196270 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie frankie, so I see you suffer dementia....
here's your post, it does seem you interpreted my post as refering to a homosexual polygamist relationship and not a woman having multiple husbands...
Frankie's post
"Yes. Even same sex atheists! Like three hot young twinks as long as they're consenting adults! Hubba Hubba! Bet you like equality for them even if you don't like it for people you hate.
But keep your lurid sexual fantasies out of this. We're trying to talk marriage equality."
like you said, there are only dumb posters who can't even remember what they posted
What don't you understand about the first word in my post "Yes"

You asked can a woman have more than one husband, I said "Yes".

Then you ask again and say I have dementia. What a moron! You can't make this stuff up. That's why I like you dopes.

But it's good you asked for help! Remember!There are no dumb posts. Only dummmies like you.
laughing man

UK

#196272 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jizzy (Zoro). That's the only way he can win an argument.
I see that Zero never returned when I gave him some actual examples of their religion. Actually, not one of them stepped up to the plate.

Their script must not have a section on how to confront their own godless belief system (Evolution) or people who see the GOP as Democrap Lite.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196273 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that Zero never returned when I gave him some actual examples of their religion. Actually, not one of them stepped up to the plate.
Their script must not have a section on how to confront their own godless belief system (Evolution) or people who see the GOP as Democrap Lite.
Zero (Jizzy) will come back with another sock puppet and act like he never got his ass handed to him. Then when you call him on it he'll just lie and say "I'm not Jizzy."

It's easy to spot his posts because he's such a dope.
laughing man

UK

#196274 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Zero (Jizzy) will come back with another sock puppet and act like he never got his ass handed to him. Then when you call him on it he'll just lie and say "I'm not Jizzy."
It's easy to spot his posts because he's such a dope.
The Covina clown is easy enough to spot (it appears to have moved temporarily to Azuza) but the rest are all a sophomoric blur.
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#196275 Jun 15, 2013
Did you guys realize this is a comment board, NOT A CHAT ROOM?

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.

Bell Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Faking it the green way: Artificial grass looks... (May '09) 2 hr Fyi 18
Bell-Maywood-Cudahy Community News (Apr '13) Dec 9 bellnative 4
West Covina Police officer under investigation ... (Jul '10) Oct '14 Isthistrue 143
Central Basin water board member Art Chacon a h... Sep '14 Watch Out 1
California High School Football - South Gate be... (Nov '06) Aug '14 south gate football 3
US job growth eases but tops 200K for a 6th month Aug '14 WeTheSheeple 6
300 pay tribute to Marvin Marker (Dec '09) Apr '14 Lawrence H LaVerne 6

Bell News Video

Bell Dating
Find my Match

Bell People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Bell News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bell

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:39 pm PST