Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

#181680 Feb 27, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you asked:
1)You keep harping on polygamy and the perceived parallel it holds to Gay Marriage even though you yourself have said you aren’t interested in polygamy for yourself. I believe you hate fuels this obsession.
2)You continually call Gay Americans and our supporter’s derogatory names. This is a typical hater tactic to marginalize Gay Americans. Additionally, I think you do this to garner attention.
3)Your posts always attack Gay Americans and our supporter’s. Never people who are against Gay Marriage and Polygamy. Your silence is like you condone their idiotic posts.
4)You used to include incent in your obsessive rants, but, have dropped it from your posts. I believe it’s because it’s too extreme for you to include in your narcissistic attempt to remain respectable to the hater crowd.
Those are the key reasons why I’m certain that you are a very lonely, impotent, bigoted, hateful and deceitful person. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you live a very solitary and emotionally unfulfilling life.
1)Lots of posters here harp on same sex marriage but they're not interested same sex marriage for themselves.

2)Relax Fruitcake.

3)Your posts attack me.

4)I believe "incent" (incest) marriage should be allowed.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn you're an angry little sh!t.

I support marriage equality for same sex, incest and poly. For everyone who is in love and wants a family. You do not. So don't call me a bigot, bigot.

Relax twinkletoes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181681 Feb 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
His right hand won't even scratch his itch anymore.
Great argument against true marriage equality fruitcake! One of your best so far.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#181682 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great argument against true marriage equality fruitcake! One of your best so far.
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.

At any rate, the man who beats polygamy to death is hardly capable of recognizing a valid argument.

“MASTER of ths skin flute”

Since: Feb 13

QUEEN CREEK, AZ

#181683 Feb 27, 2013
IS THIS THING ON ???!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181684 Feb 27, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you asked:
1)You keep harping on polygamy and the perceived parallel it holds to Gay Marriage even though you yourself have said you aren’t interested in polygamy for yourself. I believe you hate fuels this obsession.
It could also be a valid question to raise in the debate, one that seems to evoke mixed emotions among SSM supporters.
2)You continually call Gay Americans and our supporter’s derogatory names. This is a typical hater tactic to marginalize Gay Americans. Additionally, I think you do this to garner attention.
As do some supporters of SSM towards those who oppose it.
3)Your posts always attack Gay Americans and our supporter’s. Never people who are against Gay Marriage and Polygamy. Your silence is like you condone their idiotic posts.
That's not true, Frankie has expressed support of SSM, and criticized some who have oppossed it.
4)You used to include incent in your obsessive rants, but, have dropped it from your posts. I believe it’s because it’s too extreme for you to include in your narcissistic attempt to remain respectable to the hater crowd.
Is incest, at least same sex, that far removed from same sex first cousins?
Those are the key reasons why I’m certain that you are a very lonely, impotent, bigoted, hateful and deceitful person. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you live a very solitary and emotionally unfulfilling life.
Frankie seems like he'd be fun at a party, doesn't appear bigotted. I don't think you have a fair assessment of him.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181685 Feb 27, 2013
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/21/polygam...

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage

Posted By Bruce Hausknecht On August 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm In Blogs,Judicial Issues,Marriage | Comments Disabled

If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?

That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims.(My earlier coverage is here [1].) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas [2], that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.

[3]A federal judge has refused to dismiss [4] a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert [5]) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.

The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster. We’re waiting to hear if the high court will accept any of the following: the Hollingsworth v. Perry case (the California Marriage Amendment, a/k/a Prop 8), the federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits, and the Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz.

Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.

Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.

And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
Crusher

Covina, CA

#181686 Feb 27, 2013
Never been a crazier time for the GOP
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181687 Feb 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.
At any rate, the man who beats polygamy to death is hardly capable of recognizing a valid argument.
You beat Same sex marriage to death, thought I'd shake up the discussion a little! Mix it up! It was so boring.

Why does that make you angry? Polygamy deserves the same respect as same sex marriage, no?

Bottom line. I support marriage equality, you do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181688 Feb 27, 2013
Looks like Jizzybirdy is not around. The judge-its aren't being rigged!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181689 Feb 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.
Actually it was rather crude ad hominem.

You mad fruitloops?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181690 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.com/201 2/08/21/polygamy-waiting-in-th e-wings-while-supreme-court-ad dresses-the-definition-of-marr iage/
Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage
Posted By Bruce Hausknecht On August 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm In Blogs,Judicial Issues,Marriage | Comments Disabled
If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?
That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims.(My earlier coverage is here [1].) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas [2], that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.
[3]A federal judge has refused to dismiss [4] a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert [5]) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster. We’re waiting to hear if the high court will accept any of the following: the Hollingsworth v. Perry case (the California Marriage Amendment, a/k/a Prop 8), the federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits, and the Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz.
Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.
And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
The way I see it is that with the advent of same sex marriage, marriage has been redefined. There is no turning back.

Society is "evolving". Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen. But I think it's natural.

I don't mind, I like love and all that family stuff. Everyone deserves a shot at a happy family. Marriage is good for society. When I see a happy family, I like it! Whether they be same sex opposite sex, poly, or yes, even incest marriage families.

It's just logical that if marriage is redefined, we should make an equal redefinition that includes everyone. Most of these jackasses disagree. They are hypocrites.

They assume since I don't attack posters against ssm, that I don't support ssm. But the fact is I don't like hypocrites and posters like you are not as hypocritical as they are, not by a long shot.

Good references to polygamy! It's just like everyone else, if you get to know a loving poly family, It's hard to be against whatever makes them happy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181693 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You never presented an argument for marriage, and I don't have a child...
-That a blonde Ho could comprehend.

-Not anymore...

Sad.
Joshua K

Chesterfield, MO

#181694 Feb 28, 2013
expected
Sidney

Silver Spring, MD

#181695 Feb 28, 2013
dummys
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181696 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying legalizing same sex marriage will make it much easier to legalize polygamy.
And it will, it's logical, grasshopper. Glad it makes you so silly mad. It makes me happy. I like same sex marriage being allowed I also like poly marriage being allowed.
Marriage is good for society ALL marriages. Not just Big D approved marriages. You have no say in anyone's equal rights. You don't matter. Just grin and bear it. Won't hurt you at all.
I know you are saying that, you are free to have all the opinions you want to have, but there is not a single fact backing you up

go get the fact, get one state to recognize Poly, and it cannot be a state that does not recognize Same sex Marriage or that will disprove your argument

you are free to have all the opinions you want, and we are free to laugh at you about it

But you can’t claim that A ( SSM ) leads to B ( poly ) much less C ( your sister ) or D ( your goat ) until you have a single fact of a same sex marriage state recognizing Poly, and even then you would have to show how one led to the other

and remember if Utah or any state that does not recognize SSM recognizes poly you argument just got flushed down the toilet

The Brown case is working against you, because that is happening in a state that does not recognize SSM, so you cannot say one led to the other.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#181697 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
......
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.
And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
In your opinion, not in reality.

There is no requirement to make any and all changes to every law because one change is logical and sensible.

A civil right cannot be denied to one group ONLY because you are afraid that another group might someday push their cause.

Sorry, that's not rational, and it's not constitutional.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181699 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Looks like Jizzybirdy is not around. The judge-its aren't being rigged!
There is a lot of room in your head
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181700 Feb 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...you are free to have all the opinions you want, and we are free to laugh at you about it...
Gee thanks Fruitcake! Same to you.
Randy-Rock-Hudso n

Candler, NC

#181701 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.
Silly thing, we have ... You just wish to dismiss them... LOL
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181702 Feb 28, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a lot of room in your head
Get to work rigging the judge-its Jackass! You're slacking off.

Speed it up, no Viagra or Night Train for you today! Hup! Hup!

Remember now, good judge-its if your gay, no matter what, and bad judge-its for straight no matter what they say!

Except of course for your own posts which you rate good even though you're straight!

YUK!YUK!YUK! JizzyBrid. What a tool!

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
is a afro life more valuable than a Hispanic life 2 hr who da fuhk 2
California Wind Farms Kilt All The Birds (Aug '11) 2 hr who da fuhk 4
American Sniper Goes Beyond Tradition to Take ... 2 hr who da fuhk 2
What Gwyneth Paltrow Has to Do With Saving the ... 2 hr who da fuhk 12
Bachman Gomert Presidential Campaign Heats Up 2 hr who da fuhk 2
The Porn Star's Revenge: Formerly Known as Jeff... (Feb '09) 4 hr PoliticallyInclin... 3
Review: Broadway Bail Bonds 4 hr davidmartinez332 1

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:16 pm PST