Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196466 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/ ... "
You did post this didn't you ?
" engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith"
We don't make laws to suit ANY RELIGION.
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196467 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Sure you hate religious Americans, we got it. Forget religion. Why are you a hypocrite?

What harm would a marriage of three atheist women cause you and why do you want it to stay illegal?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196468 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just cut and paste the whole wikipedia Jiz, then get back to us when you're done.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mis c/R41824.pdf

Thats not wikipeda, dang son cant you read?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196469 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you hate religious Americans, we got it. Forget religion. Why are you a hypocrite?
What harm would a marriage of three atheist women cause you and why do you want it to stay illegal?
None, now go find three of them. Frank you keep bringing up Mormons. Your buddy posted about other religions. If thats the reason, religion, no
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196470 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
So you admit that you lied, you do want the change for religious reasons. YOU posted it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196471 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Thats not wikipeda, dang son cant you read?
It's not click-able because you are a moron and you don't know how to post a click-able link. I could cut and paste it in but why bother, it's just more religious claptrap cut and paste.

ASIDE FROM RELIGION and your hate of it's adherents, what reasons do you have to oppose marriage equality?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196472 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
"The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...

Golly Frankie, in India, cows are sacred, should we pass laws banning the slaughter of them. Hew how about letting them roam the streets in LA, NewYork, Chicago. Maybe 4 or 5 living next door to you?

http://www.google.com/imgres...

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#196473 Jun 17, 2013
The poster of the week goes to.....You're not two bright are you
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196474 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>So you admit that you lied, you do want the change for religious reasons. YOU posted it.
No. I did not lie you liar, I intentionally brought up religion to spin your wheels. Get you all pumped up good. Make you dance for Frankie!

Let's forget religion now that we got that out of our systems. Why are you a hypocrite and a liar?

Did you learn the liar straw man from Big D? That's his schtick. He and you have no argument so he and you lie and call me a liar. Weak. Desperate. Dishonest and sleazy.

Why do you oppose marriage equality? Calling me a liar is not an answer. Even if I was a liar it would be irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196475 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
"The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
Golly Frankie, in India, cows are sacred, should we pass laws banning the slaughter of them. Hew how about letting them roam the streets in LA, NewYork, Chicago. Maybe 4 or 5 living next door to you?
http://www.google.com/imgres...
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Your objections to marriage equality seem to be religious. Aside from religion, why do you oppose marriage equality?

Why do you oppose marriage equality for three adult atheists for example?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196476 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>None, now go find three of them. Frank you keep bringing up Mormons. Your buddy posted about other religions. If thats the reason, religion, no
So you would deny marriage based on religion. Nice! What a hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196477 Jun 17, 2013
Over 500,000 others (besides religious, Jizzy) identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

Why do you wish to deny them marriage equality JBird?
Vulcan

Covina, CA

#196478 Jun 17, 2013
(frankie) I would get that brain cell looked at by the battery company that sold it to you.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196479 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Over 500,000 others (besides religious, Jizzy) identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.
Why do you wish to deny them marriage equality JBird?
Still, the combined impact of Lawrence and Goodridge has opened the door to the question of whether marriage should be extended beyond the traditional male-female union. The primary power for marriage law resides in the states. And that is the way it should be: The question of the institution of marriage?which is a social construct--is best left to the states, which are the laboratories for the general welfare.

Congress only has indirect power over marriage, which is why the opponents of same-sex marriage introduced the FMA. Congress also has attempted to regulate marriage indirectly through court-stripping proposals and the Defense of Marriage Act, either of which may well be unconstitutional. Regardless, the definition of the institution belongs to the states.

There is no single, wise answer as to what will serve society and citizens best in this arena. With each state free -- within the state's own constitutional requirements -- to have its own public debate about what serves society, and what does not, there is the possibility that there will be 50 simultaneous experiments -- and that is much to be encouraged.

The debate will have to range well beyond the religious reasons that have dominated the public debate to date. Marriage implicates the interests of children, the law of inheritance, and legitimacy, among many other issues. As with the law of divorce, the states will learn from their own experiments and mistakes, and from those of other states.

There is no constitutional requirement that marriage exist solely between a man and a woman. To impose that rule across the country would have required a federal constitutional amendment -- such as the Federal Marriage Amendment (which addressed same-sex marriage). But the FMA failed. States have broad latitude to make these complex social decisions -- all the way from keeping their laws as they currently stand, to opening their doors to other types of marriage.

Those who seek to enter into polygamous marriages legally thus should address their arguments not to the courts, but to the state legislatures. If they cannot persuade a majority of their state legislature that they are right, then they properly will have to abide by the law of marriage, established for all. The fact their marriage arrangement is religiously motivated should not alter that outcome.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196480 Jun 17, 2013
Vulcan wrote:
(frankie) I would get that brain cell looked at by the battery company that sold it to you.
That is called ad hominem grasshopper. Sound it out. Look it up. Ask for help.

Remember! There are no dumb posts. Only dumb-ass posters like yourself.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196481 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember! There are no dumb posts. Only dumb-ass posters like yourself.
That is called ad hominem. Look it up. Ask for help.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196487 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>That is called ad hominem. Look it up. Ask for help.
No Jizzy. Pointing out someone's ad hominem is not ad hominem you big silly galoot! But do try again.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196488 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Still, the combined impact of Lawrence and Goodridge has opened the door to the question of whether marriage should be extended beyond the traditional male-female union. The primary power for marriage law resides in the states. And that is the way it should be: The question of the institution of marriage?which is a social construct--is best left to the states, which are the laboratories for the general welfare.
Congress only has indirect power over marriage, which is why the opponents of same-sex marriage introduced the FMA. Congress also has attempted to regulate marriage indirectly through court-stripping proposals and the Defense of Marriage Act, either of which may well be unconstitutional. Regardless, the definition of the institution belongs to the states.
There is no single, wise answer as to what will serve society and citizens best in this arena. With each state free -- within the state's own constitutional requirements -- to have its own public debate about what serves society, and what does not, there is the possibility that there will be 50 simultaneous experiments -- and that is much to be encouraged.
The debate will have to range well beyond the religious reasons that have dominated the public debate to date. Marriage implicates the interests of children, the law of inheritance, and legitimacy, among many other issues. As with the law of divorce, the states will learn from their own experiments and mistakes, and from those of other states.
There is no constitutional requirement that marriage exist solely between a man and a woman. To impose that rule across the country would have required a federal constitutional amendment -- such as the Federal Marriage Amendment (which addressed same-sex marriage). But the FMA failed. States have broad latitude to make these complex social decisions -- all the way from keeping their laws as they currently stand, to opening their doors to other types of marriage.
Those who seek to enter into polygamous marriages legally thus should address their arguments not to the courts, but to the state legislatures. If they cannot persuade a majority of their state legislature that they are right, then they properly will have to abide by the law of marriage, established for all. The fact their marriage arrangement is religiously motivated should not alter that outcome.
Nice cut and paste Jiz!

See? You can do it! Thank Frankie.
comander bunny

Los Angeles, CA

#196489 Jun 17, 2013
How much cock can a gay guy take up the butt????
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#196490 Jun 17, 2013
comander bunny wrote:
How much cock can a gay guy take up the butt????
Ask Frankie Rizzoto boi, he's an expert.

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.

Berkeley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 7 min no love lost 20,497
News African herbalist teaches the ancient art of he... 1 hr Inquisitor 53
News Doctor heads to court after online sex sting (Nov '06) 2 hr Legal Analyst 17,322
News Why it Matters: Income inequality 14 hr Maria 369
Will you blacks vote for trump? 16 hr Zeech 1
News Nuclear power divides California's environmenta... Tue Solarman 1
Trump Nude Statues Are Back Aug 23 Shake them things 1

Berkeley Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Berkeley Mortgages