Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201822 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182386 Mar 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Is polygamy being decriminalized?
Reality TV show polygamist and his four wives challenge Utah's bigamy laws - with support from their fellow 'Sister Wives'
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 01:23 EST, 18 January 2013 | UPDATED: 08:21 EST, 18 January 2013

A federal judge heard legal arguments in a Salt Lake City court on Thursday that could potentially decriminalize polygamy in Utah, as a reality TV show polygamist and his four wives sought to overturn the state’s ban on plural marriage.
The stars of reality show ‘Sister Wives’ Kody Brown and his four wives - Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn - claim the law is unconstitutional.
The family fled Utah for Las Vegas last year under the threat of prosecution. They did not attend the hearing in Salt Lake City, but had support in the shape of fellow sister-wives Valerie and Vicki Darger."

They’re talking about my life,’ Valerie Darger told FOX 13.‘The thing that’s different about what we’re asking for is the right to exist and the right to be left alone. We’re not seeking marriage licenses, and so, as far as legal marriage goes, it doesn’t really pertain.’
There were also opponents at the trail including anti-polygamy activist Kristyn Decker, an ex-polygamous wife who left a relationship 11 years ago.
She runs a group opposed to polygamy and led a protest to call attention to abuses and child-bride marriages within some polygamous communities.
‘We feel like if they decriminalize polygamy, the human rights violations that have gone on for so long will just continue,’ Decker said.
The Browns were represented in court by their attorney Jonathan Turley.
He told the court that the Browns’ only sin was opening their family to the TLC hit series, which drew the attention of Utah authorities.
‘The Browns wanted to show people that a plural family is not a monstrosity,' said Turley.'The state is saying if you didn’t do this TV show, you wouldn’t have a problem.'

'They have a right to free speech and are being prosecuted for it.'
The hearing dealt with the legalities of due process and freedom of association.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups peppered a state lawyer on why he shouldn’t throw out Utah’s bigamy law. It’s stricter than the laws in 49 other states - most of them prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses.
Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.
What if Kody Brown kept separate households for each wife, or was just having affairs, the judge asked.
'That would not be polygamy,' said Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen.
Yet Jensen argued Utah’s unique history of polygamy for more than 100 years has made victims of thousands of girls forced to marry as young as 13, and caused rampant child abuse, with boys 'kicked out on the street' to reduce competition for older men seeking multiple brides.
He said the state has an interest in preventing social harm.

Waddoups said the Browns’ 17 children are irrelevant to the case, and Turley argued that sex and child abuse was just as common in monogamous families.

Part 2 next post

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22643...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22643...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182387 Mar 3, 2013
Waddoups challenged Jensen on whether Utah was cracking down on a religion. Most polygamists in the state call themselves fundamentalist Mormons, although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy more than a century ago.
'Every state in the nation has these laws - and not every state has Mormon polygamists,' replied Jensen, who argued that bigamy was not merely adultery.
'I’ll tell you what makes it different - the harm to women and children coming out of a polygamous relationship. We have a history of it in Utah - stories in the thousands.'
Turley said Utah has to prove the harm of polygamy, not assert general statements. He argued the exile of young boys was a myth and that Utah was trying to enforce morality.
'We’re asking for what Justice Brandeis called the most important constitutional right, the right to be left alone,' Turley said, referring to Louis Brandeis, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#182388 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality TV show polygamist and his four wives challenge Utah's bigamy laws - with support from their fellow 'Sister Wives'
....
All of them aren't actually married to each-other.

And I believe that they are religious fundamentalists, as are the vast majority of the tiny population who seek polygamous marriages. They are making the claim that their lifestyle should be protected under the very same freedom of religion that the anti-gay religious folks are using to try to deny the ability to marry to gay Americans.

Funny how that works.

It's always better to take religion out of the secular law making process. Either there is a state interest in preventing or promoting something, or there is not. No religious belief needed.

Trying to legislate one sects beliefs into law to the detriment of other sects (or people who have no sect) just isn't sensible.
Se Questers

Covina, CA

#182389 Mar 3, 2013
Lots of Se Questes out there, th GOP, Republican and Tea Party membership are happy that the cuts have kicked in?

And thats what called a DUMB and STUPID political party. Up front this might look good but in the short the long term (one month from now) the behind the scenes costs will be insane.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182390 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them aren't actually married to each-other.
The wives aren't married to each other either legally, or spiritually. Only one is legally married to Kody. All of the wives are spiritually married to Kody.
And I believe that they are religious fundamentalists, as are the vast majority of the tiny population who seek polygamous marriages. They are making the claim that their lifestyle should be protected under the very same freedom of religion that the anti-gay religious folks are using to try to deny the ability to marry to gay Americans.
Funny how that works.
Truly ironic.
It's always better to take religion out of the secular law making process. Either there is a state interest in preventing or promoting something, or there is not. No religious belief needed.
Religion does play a role, I don't think it will ever totally not have an influence.
Trying to legislate one sects beliefs into law to the detriment of other sects (or people who have no sect) just isn't sensible.
Fair enough. There are secular, and non fundamentalist LDS, polygamists though.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182391 Mar 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Is polygamy being decriminalized?
Yes.

There will be one less law against it when Prop 8 is gone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182392 Mar 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
CB radios?
hahahahaha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahhahahaha
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahahhaha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahah
A test of reality?
hahahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhaahahha
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182393 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them aren't actually married to each-other.
And I believe that they are religious fundamentalists, as are the vast majority of the tiny population who seek polygamous marriages. They are making the claim that their lifestyle should be protected under the very same freedom of religion that the anti-gay religious folks are using to try to deny the ability to marry to gay Americans.
Funny how that works.
It's always better to take religion out of the secular law making process. Either there is a state interest in preventing or promoting something, or there is not. No religious belief needed.
Trying to legislate one sects beliefs into law to the detriment of other sects (or people who have no sect) just isn't sensible.
Yes. What possible harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or anyone else?

Marriage is good for society.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182394 Mar 3, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Divorces are a dime a dozen and you're only reason for marriage is sex. I'd say we're already there. Or at least some of us are. Maybe you with your shallow approach to finding sex.
She Voh....think about it. If sex between men and women didn't make babies, would the state have an interest in any adult consenting relationship? Would it matter to any society who married who? Would marriage as we know it even exist?
Not me though, I'm content with mine and see no reason to exclude others from trying for the same, regardless of their sexual orientation (with the caveat that all participants are consenting adults.
Well then why not recognize, any and all adult intimate personal relationships as marriage. All can participate.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182395 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing but ad homoan gay twirl troll attacks. Not one single rational response.
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons;
One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design.
And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Out of touch?
I have a letter certifying that I am sane and perfectly able to live on my own. Signed by three professional psychologists.
You are afraid to ask your family and friends if they think you are sane.
As to intercourse being at the heart, you deny the primary focus of mating behavior? Or that in marriage, the culmination of union is being one in body, mind and spirit? And you call me 'out of touch'?
Then you top your stupidity off by talking about rationality???
You admit your ignorance about anal sex, and then deny the violation of design. You don't even need a brain to see mistaking a septic system for a playground, all you need is eyes!!!
Heterosexuals have an alternative. They simply expose themselves as idiots when they violate each other anally. Gays don't have that alternative to exist in their orientation, do they.
As to lesbians, while not harmful, oral sex is unhealthy, unless you view urine as lemonade and shit as chocolate pudding.
You simply express the silliness of pretending ad homoan attacks are reason. A near senile old man just kicked your ass with common sense, and you still have no straight answer (pun intended).
There you go with that letter malarky. Get some original material, K-Mart. You've kicked no one's ass, not in here anyway. I suspect you've bored a few people to death. That is your only means of winning any argument.

You haven't said an thing about how lesbian sex is demeaning or unhealthy. You've just repeated your claim. More bumper sticker lunacy. You're stealing Brian_G's M.O. now.

I haven't denied the primary focus of mating behavior, just marriage. You're too thick to understand what I posted, apparently. I'm not at all surprised as you've kept your head up your ass so long anal sex is your only focus. You're stuck on anal for two silly reasons that deny reality. You keep repeating them without offering any substance to support your claim. Again, bumper sticker presentation. Premise with no argument. I suspect your addled brain has you convinced otherwise. Carry on, K-Mart, carry on.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182396 Mar 3, 2013
Se Questers wrote:
Lots of Se Questes out there, th GOP, Republican and Tea Party membership are happy that the cuts have kicked in?
And thats what called a DUMB and STUPID political party. Up front this might look good but in the short the long term (one month from now) the behind the scenes costs will be insane.
You need to include the democrats and independents in the dumb and stupid category. All any of them have done is bicker with each other rather than work for the benefit of the country. All of 'em are spoiled little rich brats serving their own egos at our expense.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182397 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
She Voh....think about it. If sex between men and women didn't make babies, would the state have an interest in any adult consenting relationship? Would it matter to any society who married who? Would marriage as we know it even exist?
<quoted text>
Well then why not recognize, any and all adult intimate personal relationships as marriage. All can participate.
Inheritance and joint ownership of property along with tax filing - there are two things for you that are of interest to the state.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182398 Mar 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
CB radios?
hahahahaha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahhahahaha
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahahhaha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahah
A test of reality?
hahahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhaahahha
Um, yes. After you get done with the loonie laughter, I will point out that I, at least, put this to a real test, instead of relying on fictitious propaganda, found on internet sites. This shows that I am willing to entertain the notion that your side MIGHT be right, although in the face of reality, your lies do not hold up. Most Americans do NOT "suppor" SSM. Laugh at that.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182399 Mar 3, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to include the democrats and independents in the dumb and stupid category. All any of them have done is bicker with each other rather than work for the benefit of the country. All of 'em are spoiled little rich brats serving their own egos at our expense.
This is nothing new. They are going to continue, right up until the end.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182400 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This is nothing new. They are going to continue, right up until the end.
I know it is nothing new. What boils my bladder content is when conservatives/republicans blame all of our problems on liberals/democrats and when liberals/democrats blame everything on conservatives/republicans. Each side claiming to have all the answers. Most of what they have to offer are little more than experiments that may or may not work in current times. I'd like to see a little more civil discourse, a little give & take, and a whole lot less red/orange faced shouting matches. Grow the fxck up will ya?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182401 Mar 3, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Inheritance and joint ownership of property along with tax filing - there are two things for you that are of interest to the state.
Legal matters such as those that can apply to all sorts of relationships, and the would have the same interest. Siblings can own property together, and may have inheritance issues or concerns, yet are not allowed to marry. Again remove the sexual aspect and what is left. What makes marriage a distinct relationship worthy of state recognition?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#182402 Mar 3, 2013
Se Questers wrote:
Lots of Se Questes out there, th GOP, Republican and Tea Party membership are happy that the cuts have kicked in?
And thats what called a DUMB and STUPID political party. Up front this might look good but in the short the long term (one month from now) the behind the scenes costs will be insane.
Se Questers.

Yes. But you are a taxpayer supported schizophrenic. If many of your fellow schizoids can save taxpayer money by spending their time mumbling to themselves on the public streets, why do you feel yourself privy to the hard earned taxpayer money that is needed to stand the cost of supplying you with Government drugs that enable you to use your taxpayer funded computer to post annoying and inane remarks that have the purpose of being disruptive? Shouldn't hard earned taxpayer money be better used to further feather the nest of revolutionary Councils and other "pro increased California tax" advocates who now control the failed "Liberal" State of California?

Ronald
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182403 Mar 3, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it is nothing new. What boils my bladder content is when conservatives/republicans blame all of our problems on liberals/democrats and when liberals/democrats blame everything on conservatives/republicans. Each side claiming to have all the answers. Most of what they have to offer are little more than experiments that may or may not work in current times. I'd like to see a little more civil discourse, a little give & take, and a whole lot less red/orange faced shouting matches. Grow the fxck up will ya?
Worry not, their ship has been sinking for some time now, soon their entire party will be an unimportant fringe

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182404 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal matters such as those that can apply to all sorts of relationships, and the would have the same interest. Siblings can own property together, and may have inheritance issues or concerns, yet are not allowed to marry. Again remove the sexual aspect and what is left. What makes marriage a distinct relationship worthy of state recognition?
Marriage contracts cover over 1000 legal rights. The state's interest involves sex least of all. The legal bond between siblings doesn't have a parallel that exists between two unrelated adults, unless they're married.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182405 Mar 3, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Worry not, their ship has been sinking for some time now, soon their entire party will be an unimportant fringe
To whom are you referring by "their ship?"

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
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 38 min questionable guilt 5,548
Katy Perry Stuns Crowd With Filthy Vag 1 hr Lizza Oinx 2
News Armed Woman In Custody Following Barricade In L... 1 hr Timmy X 2
Obama Pulls Head from Rear End, Sticks It Back In 1 hr Abe R 6
News Ross opens different type of store in O.C. (Aug '11) 6 hr paininthealias 2
News Elin Vanderlip dies at 90 at her Rancho Palos V... (Jul '09) 6 hr Martian Montoya 87
anyone want to watch me and my boyfriend right ... 9 hr tikiwitch 1
More from around the web

Brea People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Brea Mortgages