Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,149

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

#180241 Feb 19, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) 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.

So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180242 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Fluck are you stuck on stoopid? I have told you NO on many occasions. The Judges ruling has no bearing on polygamy at all. The flucking thread is about voters trying to remove an existing right, based on a persons sexuality. That's discrimination you flipping moron.
I think he is stuck on stupid, he is still working the same tactic that has failed over and over and over and he is still on it.

Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180243 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) 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.
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.
Do you understand that laws that allow polygamy for Mormons only would be Unconstitutional? You need to hire a lawyer and take it before SCOTUS.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180244 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he is stuck on stupid, he is still working the same tactic that has failed over and over and over and he is still on it.
Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
I started a thread just for him. His very own blogg
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180245 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you understand that laws that allow polygamy for Mormons only would be Unconstitutional? You need to hire a lawyer and take it before SCOTUS.
That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )

It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever

Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180246 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Pietro somehow thinks that its impossible for two men or two women to raise a child.
Pietro knows its biological impossible for two men or two women to create a child that is the biological product of their union. Pietro also knows two women can raise a child as evidenced by single mothers, and their mother, raising her child/her grandchild together. Or two adult sisters. Contrary to some SSMer's beliefs, there are tether examples of same gendered pairs, other than couples, raising children. Are you in favor of marriage protections for children's being raised by those pairings?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180247 Feb 19, 2013
Here’s the problem: There’s no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates.

They argue: Marriage is about making a contract with the person you love.

They argue: Marriage equality (the right to marry whom you want) is a civil rights issue.

They argue: Other marriage constructions will not affect your marriage.

All of these arguments support polyamory equally as well as same-sex marriage. So now, when it suits them, they’re calling on the authority of “tradition,” without any means of justifying their preference for two people only.

There is, in fact, no principle behind their preferred boundaries at all. All they can do is declare their definition to be the correct one:

Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, told The Australian that his lobby group's concept of marriage was "what it's always been" of "two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others".

That actually is not the concept of marriage that “has always been.” The concept of marriage that “has always been” is one where the boundaries are principled because they’re conformed to the nature of reality—the complementary differences between men and women.

The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case*). If the union of a man and a woman didn't have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would never have existed.

Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.

Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.

The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from principles of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone’s personal preferences.

By contrast, these same-sex marriage advocates are refusing to apply their principles equally to everybody. This is inconsistency at best and bigotry at worst.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180248 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )
It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever
Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )
http://www.topix.com/forum/new s/gay/T488NGRGQ6RR0N6FM

just fer frankiee
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180249 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro knows its biological impossible for two men or two women to create a child that is the biological product of their union. Pietro also knows two women can raise a child as evidenced by single mothers, and their mother, raising her child/her grandchild together. Or two adult sisters. Contrary to some SSMer's beliefs, there are tether examples of same gendered pairs, other than couples, raising children. Are you in favor of marriage protections for children's being raised by those pairings?
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )

I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180250 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you understand that laws that allow polygamy for Mormons only would be Unconstitutional? You need to hire a lawyer and take it before SCOTUS.
Yes of course. So does the author and any intelligent person who read her essay.

She is not advocating polygamy for Mormons only dummy. She is advocating equal protection of the law.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180251 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Fluck are you stuck on stoopid? I have told you NO on many occasions. The Judges ruling has no bearing on polygamy at all. The flucking thread is about voters trying to remove an existing right, based on a persons sexuality. That's discrimination you flipping moron.
No effect? You can be sure every means used to get equal protection for same sex marriage will and should be used to get equal protection for poly. That's what EQUAL protection means "you flipping moron".

Every victory for same sex marriage bodes well for polygamy. That's the way it works, son.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180252 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes of course. So does the author and any intelligent person who read her essay.
She is not advocating polygamy for Mormons only dummy. She is advocating equal protection of the law.
Then she needs to take it before scotus. Frankiie I started a blog just for you. Some one posted to it already
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180253 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )
I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.
The government agrees with you and ripped 436 children from their biological parents with no crime or abuse alleged or committed beyond polygamy. These were happy normal kids in loving families.

Unfortunately for them SCOTUS just doesn't like polygamy. Nice!

I support equal protection even for everyone. Even unpopular people. You don't it seems.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180254 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Then she needs to take it before scotus. Frankiie I started a blog just for you. Some one posted to it already
It's a dead link. Learn how to post a link you dopey obsessed cyberstalking creep!

You can write an essay without taking it to SCOTUS jackass. You can post about equal protection without being off topic dummy. And censorship sucks. And you're just an angry fool.

Hope that helps!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180255 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )
I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.
The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180256 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )
It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever
Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )
You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.

And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!

But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180257 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a dead link. Learn how to post a link you dopey obsessed cyberstalking creep!
You can write an essay without taking it to SCOTUS jackass. You can post about equal protection without being off topic dummy. And censorship sucks. And you're just an angry fool.
Hope that helps!
One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180258 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.
And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!
But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
You can ( and do )post all day long, but it won’t do your pet obsession any good at all, you certainly are not changing anyone’s opinion.

The only thing that will do it any good is for you to get the signatures needed for a proposition and put it on a ballot, that will elicit a response from the general public.

And then you can work from there, right not you are not at step one yet, you are just using it as a way to attack those that are for same sex marriage ( which so far has been your only point )
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180259 Feb 19, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist
Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180260 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.
I agree

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.

Brea Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 28,143
Why the helicopters? 4 hr 1138d3nx 2
Yorba Linda Open House Fri Nov 21 6 hr Julieochomes 1
Helping the homeless people at La Palma Park (Sep '12) 9 hr Tony 125
LM Football Loses Early In CIF Again Wed HPT 2
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) Wed Veteran 5,162
Pastor charged with bigamy (Apr '10) Wed lavon affair 16

Brea News Video

Brea Dating
Find my Match

Brea People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Brea News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brea

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:05 am PST