Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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

#181845 Feb 28, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
What posts? That's what I'm saying, you never mentioned it. I can't provide evidence to something that doesn't exist.
Which is exactly why I'm saying, it doesn't exist. You've never mentioned hermaphrodites and if you're so high and mighty on this thing and all "nobody-should-dare-get-o ff-topic-with-me" then you'll stay on topic and enlighten us about what you think about hermaphrodites marrying.
Otherwise you're just as dabbled in double standards as you and those who agree with you accuse our side of being.
If you weren't such a dope, you'd know when I say I support TRUE marriage equality, it means I support the right to marry for EVERY adult who wants marriage and wants a family. What don't you understand about "everyone" jackass?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181846 Feb 28, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
What posts? That's what I'm saying, you never mentioned it. I can't provide evidence to something that doesn't exist.
Which is exactly why I'm saying, it doesn't exist. You've never mentioned hermaphrodites and if you're so high and mighty on this thing and all "nobody-should-dare-get-o ff-topic-with-me" then you'll stay on topic and enlighten us about what you think about hermaphrodites marrying.
Otherwise you're just as dabbled in double standards as you and those who agree with you accuse our side of being.
How rare, or common, is the condition?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181847 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California, X-box.
Sounds relevant and on topic to me.
Don't hog all the victimhood, Prop 8 is as much about poly as it is about same sex.
What don't you understand about one man one woman? Prop 8 prohibits both same sex and poly marriage.
Enough with your hypotheticals about poly marriage, it's clear enough you don't support it.

"Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act")[21][22] was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo...

The ballot title of Proposition 8 did not in any way mention polygamy or polygamous relationships or marriages. It only mentioned the restrictions of the marriage rights of gay couples.

Now: I am going to go back through every single one of your comments posted on this forum and mark all of them "off-topic". Why?

This topic has nothing to do with the right to polygamy. If you're interested in advocating for the legal recognition of it in California, you can find a forum about it and comment all you like. If none exists, you can attempt to create one. But don't whine about it here. It has no place and your petty attempts to make Prop 8 out as anti-poly don't work now, nor did they ever.

Ta ta!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181848 Feb 28, 2013
Dale DuBois wrote:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peop les-blog/kim-jong-un-and-barac k-obama-bobbsey-twins-t8165.ht ml
Good one!
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181849 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How rare, or common, is the condition?
Between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. But even so that's thousands of people. At least.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181850 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you weren't such a dope, you'd know when I say I support TRUE marriage equality, it means I support the right to marry for EVERY adult who wants marriage and wants a family. What don't you understand about "everyone" jackass?
The fact that you try to make things that don't pertain to poly marriage appear as though they do, like Prop 8.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181851 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How rare, or common, is the condition?
Does it matter?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#181852 Feb 28, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
And who do hermaphrodites marry? Are they just completely cut out from the institution? They're not a man or a woman. Or this law doesn't specify for them.
You and akpilot say we're all just for a cause, for self-affirmation, and if we were really for letting everyone be happy, we would support poly marriage. But where are the hermaphrodites in this? They exist. Their conditions are genetic. Neither you nor akpilot have mentioned that.
Please, enlighten me on your insight to this.
You may wish to bring yourself up to the 20th century and realise that hermaphrodite is a term applied to animals. Intersex is the preferred term for humans.

Intersex indivicuals often identify as either man or woman and live according to that identity. This may be "determined" for them at a very early age by parents and doctors or the individual may adopt a gender identity later in life based upon personal feelings. Note here that I don't think they should be forced to live as a man or a woman, it ought to be their choice to identify as they wish.

With regard to marriage I seriously doubt there is an issue for couples as they've more than likely settled on who they are well before vows are considered.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#181853 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How rare, or common, is the condition?
Intersex is a broad category that probably affects more people than you think. I've seen figures around 1 in 100. Having both genetalia phenotypically expressed is more uncommon though.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181854 Feb 28, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You may wish to bring yourself up to the 20th century and realise that hermaphrodite is a term applied to animals. Intersex is the preferred term for humans.
Intersex indivicuals often identify as either man or woman and live according to that identity. This may be "determined" for them at a very early age by parents and doctors or the individual may adopt a gender identity later in life based upon personal feelings. Note here that I don't think they should be forced to live as a man or a woman, it ought to be their choice to identify as they wish.
With regard to marriage I seriously doubt there is an issue for couples as they've more than likely settled on who they are well before vows are considered.
My apologies on not referring to them as intersex, it was a spur-of-the-moment mentioning. You are right, the more accurate modern term is intersex.

Plus, I agree completely with your last sentence, but it's not what addressing the point I was making. If marriage were between one man and one woman, and that was the plain-as-day definition of it, then too many complex "what-if" cases would be left.

In no way saying I disagree with what you said, though.
Dan

Sacramento, CA

#181855 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda sad you have no argument except the off topic card.
Almost 3 years later and "Frank Rizzo" still has no life finding himself in here spitting out bullshit and venom.

Good Gawd buddy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181856 Feb 28, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you try to make things that don't pertain to poly marriage appear as though they do, like Prop 8.
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181857 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost 3 years later and "Frank Rizzo" still has no life finding himself in here spitting out bullshit and venom.
Good Gawd buddy.
You say "Gawd" just like Jizzybirdy. Are you guys brothers or something?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181858 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost 3 years later and "Frank Rizzo" still has no life finding himself in here spitting out bullshit and venom.
Good Gawd buddy.
Says Buttered Pancakes!
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181859 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California.
That's one of the most radical hypotheticals I've ever heard, and there's no logic to it. Thusly, I'm not even going to bother responding to it.

If you desire a response, I suggest you express your point in a much more comprehensible way.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181860 Feb 28, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Does it matter?
Yes.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181861 Feb 28, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. But even so that's thousands of people. At least.
Are there any cases where it was an issue regarding marriage?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181862 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any cases where it was an issue regarding marriage?
I'll give you the Frankie Rizzo answer: show me proof of the thing we're arguing over the existence of.

You may now feel confused.

“I won't be your hero.”

Since: Jul 12

Vacaville, CA

#181863 Feb 28, 2013
The people of California voted this down. I voted for gay marriage but I have since changed my mind on it. Should gays be allowed to get married? Yes. But marriage isn't a right and none of the government's business to be in. People wanted it put to a vote and they lost, they should of moved on.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181864 Feb 28, 2013
JoshCham wrote:
The people of California voted this down. I voted for gay marriage but I have since changed my mind on it. Should gays be allowed to get married? Yes. But marriage isn't a right and none of the government's business to be in. People wanted it put to a vote and they lost, they should of moved on.
Historically, no rights activist movements have ever put the decision over whether to extend the rights to a general ballot. If this had been the case, we might still have slavery in effect today.

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
Country boy comics Alvin G on set of 'All eyes ... 4 hr HollywoodFinest 1
Disabling security for Clinton server laid out ... 4 hr Diane 1
Whats your favourite shop to make unique gifts? (Nov '15) 4 hr text ritter 3
Review: Fox Moving & Storage, LLC (Sep '15) 6 hr JohnTSanders 35
Open Borders Not Brexit Opened The Door to The ... 8 hr Culture Auditor 1
News Bobbi Brown's First West Coast Beauty Boutique ... 14 hr beetn off 2
News Veteran who died waiting for ambulance ID'd (Jul '14) 14 hr Hood-cats 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages