Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#181347 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's way better than your "marry your goat" argument against marriage equality.
It's almost unbelievable you are so stupid as to use that dumb argument and not notice you're acting just like the bigots against SSM.
I talked to your sister, she doesn’t want you, maybe your goat will.

( chuckle )

Frankie, we all know already, you have no actual interest in poly marriage, you don’t actually want to marry your sister, and you are refraining from telling us about your feelings toward you goat.

You only use these subjects as a way to try and attack supporters of Same Sex Marriage

You aren’t fooling anyone.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181348 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal aspects of granting same sex marriage are pretty simple. Not much different than for traditional marriage. The legal aspects of polygamy will be more complicated. But not preventative. They are much less complicated than you think. They can easily be worked out.
But that's irrelevant. It's no reason to deny equal protection. Try again.
We can only deny if a group officially asks from a legal perspective, presents the case, builds public support.

that takes some work, work you have already stated you are not willing to do.

( pleas mention Utah, I could use another laugh today )

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181349 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.

I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.

I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181350 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Striking down prop 8 bodes well for polgamy.
And I'm very glad that exposes your hypocrisy and makes you very angry.
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181351 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181352 Feb 26, 2013
Straight not zigzag wrote:
Gross, same sex relationships and marriage is just a perversion of love , next thing you know people who love their Dog so much they marry it. when humans make love they make children and not poop.
Next thing you know, closet queens might be forced out.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181353 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.
Here we go with the NARTH bullshit propaganda spew....
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181354 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support gay marriage. What don't you understand about that jackass?
Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181355 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
People who don’t have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181356 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.
I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.
I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.
Yes. It is not my place either. To say who can marry and who cannot. I support everyone's right to marry. Not just approved groups.

As a conservative I fully support same sex marriage. It is not the government's place to decide which genders may marry and by the very same logic it is not the governments place to decide the number of participants in that marriage either.

What harm would a loving committed marriage of three men cause anyone? Those against polygamy will probably never even have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family, it will be so rare.

Supporting polygamy causes all hell to break loose on this thread. That speaks volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181357 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
People who don’t have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Right. I have no valid argument against same sex marriage. There is none. I support same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181358 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Relax fruitcake, I call my girlfriend and grand kids that. They giggle.

I use it with no sexuality connotation whatsoever. Get that chip off your shoulder Miss Thing.

One more failure in your witch hunt. Try harder.

The "you're lying" straw man. So old.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181359 Feb 26, 2013
Batting order wrote:
Hi rizzo, aren't you going to be next up on the trial court issues in the city of Bell, California?
http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/020/clock-cuck...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181360 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
Supporting polygamy causes all hell to break loose on this thread. That speaks volumes.
That is only because it is unrelated to gay people having the same ability to marry just ONE that straight folks already have, and because it is one of the prime straw men thrown around as a reason to prevent gay folks from marrying just that one.

Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse.

But only if that spouse is of the opposite gender.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181361 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant?
You do dummy. And so do I.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181362 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
We know that Miss Thing.

But prop 8 says marriage is for a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage AND polygamy. It's defeat is good for both.

Your anger at that fact and your attempts to deny that fact speak volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181363 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because it is unrelated to gay people having the same ability to marry just ONE that straight folks already have, and because it is one of the prime straw men thrown around as a reason to prevent gay folks from marrying just that one.
Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse.
But only if that spouse is of the opposite gender.
There should be no reason to say "opposite sex marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "poly marriage". It's all just "marriage"

All marriages are worthy of the same respect and consideration.

The government should have no say in who you marry. If they want to offer special benefits to married people, they should respect equal protection.

Either they should stop all the goodies they give to married people, or stop choosing who gets them based on tradition or popularity of their marriages and give them to all marriages.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181364 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that Miss Thing.
But prop 8 says marriage is for a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage AND polygamy. It's defeat is good for both.
Your anger at that fact and your attempts to deny that fact speak volumes.
LOL are you suggesting that polygamy was legal before prop 8?

Wrong!... try again

Same sex marriage was in fact legal before prop 8, and some 18,000 legal same sex marriages were preformed legally before this unconstitutional measure was voted on.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181365 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitcake, I call my girlfriend and grand kids that. They giggle.
I use it with no sexuality connotation whatsoever. Get that chip off your shoulder Miss Thing.
One more failure in your witch hunt. Try harder.
The "you're lying" straw man. So old.
Sure........ we believe you..... wink, wink.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181366 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You do dummy. And so do I.
I never said that.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Los Angeles Windshield and Auto Glass Repair. 45 min jamie 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 4 hr Earl 20,642
Review: Fox Moving & Storage, LLC (Sep '15) 7 hr dennisF475 97
HOW TO WIN YOUR EX BACK AFTER BREAKUP OR DIVORC... 18 hr Helen 1
white trash 18 hr smh 1
News David Crosby Talks Solo Rebirth, End of CSN 21 hr Jim 1
News Variety to host diversity conference, Pharrell ... Sep 26 Oh No You Di-nt 1

Beverly Hills Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages