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
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188875 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple. Supporting same sex marriage but not polygamy is hypocritical.
The fact that it makes you and Big D angry is just more evidence that it is hypocritical.
ok. so you stated your opinion. keep in mind, everyone has the same right as you to form their own opinion.

and i'm far from angry. strangers on the internet do not have that capacity to control my emotions. you just don't like being called out on your slipperly slope arguments as big d is doing.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188876 Apr 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
your points have been made and noted. obviously many disagree with you. is this all you have to add to the discussion regarding the judge overturning Prop 8? do you have anything pertinent to say regarding possible SCOTUS rulings or findings?
Prop 8 dealt with the definition of marriage being a man and a woman - and the couples that brought the trial forward are same sex couples - not a poly-marriage group. all facts presented in court, all expert testimony presented in court is based upon the those that brought the suit forward by being same sex couples. there was never anything included in any discussion, except in your desire to divert the discussion, in regards to poly-marriage of any sort.
do you have anything pertinent to add to the discussion with respect to the judge's findings on any level? any of the facts presented? any of the experts or their testimony in court? the appeal? SCOTUS's hearings? anything along those lines?
What part of prop 8 "marriage is one man one woman only" confuses you?

Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against same sex marriage. You know, equally. It's a simple concept really. "one" means exactly what it says.

Don't hog all the victimhood.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188877 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So if I am not out in my wheelchair gathering signatures I cannot discuss it? Please show me where you found that rule and please tell me why would I observe that stupid rule?
Do you mention Mars to the school kiddies? STOP! you have never been to Mars! You are not allowed to discuss it!
It isnít that you arenít allowed to discuss it Frankie, you can say whatever you want here, and we can laugh at you for it, the same as you laugh at us for anything and everything we say. Donít pretend you donít it is far too late for that.

That isnít the point, the point is if you are going to use the decades old standard playbook against same sex marriage, word for word that we have been hearing for years... donít be too surprised when we call you on it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188878 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but sibling cannot get married now, regardless of their gender, so htat argument makes no sense.
if hte details of hte polygamous marriage are nto worked out, how can you say it would be equal? three wives getting the same survivor benefits for SS? not equal to my marriage...
Why can't siblings marry? First cousins can in many states.

Siblings should be allowed to marry. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? right.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188879 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple. Supporting same sex marriage but not polygamy is hypocritical.
The fact that it makes you and Big D angry is just more evidence that it is hypocritical.
My point is simple claiming to support same sex marriage or poly when you actually arenít is hypocritical

and this is from someone that would, and has voted for same sex marriage and will vote in favor of Poly if and when it ever comes up.

I am willing to wager I am more in favor of Poly than you are, it is just that you are more obsessed with the subject because you think you can use it against same sex marriage.

I am less interested in it because I donít think it will be possible for at least a decade. Same was true of same sex marriage 10 years ago.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188880 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't siblings marry? First cousins can in many states.
Siblings should be allowed to marry. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? right.
if you want to change that law, go ahead, but it doesn't wash with the marriage equality argument...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188881 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't siblings marry? First cousins can in many states.
Siblings should be allowed to marry. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? right.
That is the next paragraph in the decades old religious nut jobs pamphlet opposed to Same Sex marriage.

First you bring up Poly, then you move straight to Incest.

Ya ya... heard it all before.

You arenít scaring anyone other than those that are so brain bound by religion they would not be in favor of same sex marriage anyone, that argument wonít work on anyone with a pinch of intelligence left.

Your problem is you are playing to your constituency, those already opposed to same sex marriage, you wonít convince any of the majority to oppose same sex marriage with that kind of tactic.

Same reason Republicans arenít winning the presidency, they are playing only to their out of touch constituency and not the majority of voters.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188882 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but sibling cannot get married now, regardless of their gender, so htat argument makes no sense.
if hte details of hte polygamous marriage are nto worked out, how can you say it would be equal? three wives getting the same survivor benefits for SS? not equal to my marriage...
Why shouldn't same sex siblings be allowed to marry? Same sex first cousins in SSM/FCM states can, what would be the reasoning to prohibit same sex siblings?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188883 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if you want to change that law, go ahead, but it doesn't wash with the marriage equality argument...
Sure it does. Opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marrying due the possibility of sexual reproductive birth defects. No such risk with ANY same sex sibling pairing, so why should such a prohibition remain in place?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188884 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of prop 8 "marriage is one man one woman only" confuses you?
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against same sex marriage. You know, equally. It's a simple concept really. "one" means exactly what it says.
Don't hog all the victimhood.
no where in the court cases was polygamy included or even discussed. it was not included. i'm not going to project and guess why or why not.

what we can discuss is what is really pertinent to the Prop 8 case - what is documented via court documents to be a consideration. that's the topic of this thread - the judge's findings in the Prop 8 trial.

if you want to discuss polygamy - then show us where in the court documents that it's discussed, included or mentioned. specifically.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188886 Apr 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. Opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marrying due the possibility of sexual reproductive birth defects. No such risk with ANY same sex sibling pairing, so why should such a prohibition remain in place?
Did you just switch sides? Are you now all of a sudden supportive of Same Sex marriage?

Or are you trying to nibble at specific laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8 that you know would scare your constituency even more. Your problem isnít your constituency, the people you need to try and convince is everyone else.

The more outlandish you get, the more you look like a screaming fanatic... that works in some circles... but not where you need it.

From here... you look like you are getting desperate, and I suppose you should be.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188887 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.
why?
How about there's no rational reason to have it. None, niente....zip...how did western civilization survive into the 21st century, on this quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Radical...before ya know it someone will suggesy that human reproduction is sexual. What a concept....sex between men and women makes babies. Who knows maybe one of those babies will grow up and call himself "Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188888 Apr 16, 2013
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over Californiaís Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,ďwhat state restrictions could ever exist,Ē for example,ďwith respect to the number of people ... that could get married?Ē

In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
no where in the court cases was polygamy included or even discussed. it was not included. i'm not going to project and guess why or why not.
what we can discuss is what is really pertinent to the Prop 8 case - what is documented via court documents to be a consideration. that's the topic of this thread - the judge's findings in the Prop 8 trial.
if you want to discuss polygamy - then show us where in the court documents that it's discussed, included or mentioned. specifically.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188889 Apr 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about there's no rational reason to have it. None, niente....zip...how did western civilization survive into the 21st century, on this quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Radical...before ya know it someone will suggesy that human reproduction is sexual. What a concept....sex between men and women makes babies. Who knows maybe one of those babies will grow up and call himself "Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects.....
Because we are a nation of Justice, Freedom and Equality, were justice is blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.

Because it is the right thing to do

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188890 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just switch sides? Are you now all of a sudden supportive of Same Sex marriage?
Contradiction in terms....Same sex marriage......its like calling a veggie patty a "burger".
Or are you trying to nibble at specific laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8 that you know would scare your constituency even more. Your problem isnít your constituency, the people you need to try and convince is everyone else.
Simply posing legitimate questions that SSMers seem to have difficulty answering. Why prohibit same sex siblings from getting the government bennies pkg know as marriage?
The more outlandish you get, the more you look like a screaming fanatic... that works in some circles... but not where you need it.
From here... you look like you are getting desperate, and I suppose you should be.
Tsk...tsk.....see what happens when we fool with mother nature? We don't know where it will end.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188891 Apr 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradiction in terms....Same sex marriage......its like calling a veggie patty a "burger".
<quoted text>
Simply posing legitimate questions that SSMers seem to have difficulty answering. Why prohibit same sex siblings from getting the government bennies pkg know as marriage?
<quoted text>
Tsk...tsk.....see what happens when we fool with mother nature? We don't know where it will end.
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.

Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188892 Apr 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/04/9725/
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over Californiaís Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,ďwhat state restrictions could ever exist,Ē for example,ďwith respect to the number of people ... that could get married?Ē
In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.<quoted text>
let's highlight this from the above :
"In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage."
Olson's argument was not disputed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188893 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.
SSSB is perhaps common, and rather old, calling it "homosexuality" is new.
Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
Simply pointing out the obvious. Marriage throughout human history as been virtually a male female relationship, either monogamous or polygamous. SSM, except for a few scattered historical examples, is a recent modern Western invention. The collective wisdom of the ages, Mother Nature, to put it anotherway, indicates that the building block of human societies is the union of male and female. Its worked since the dawn of time, why fundamentally alter it now?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188894 Apr 16, 2013
Which reminds me... Mother Nature is a great argument for Poly supporters.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188895 Apr 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
SSSB is perhaps common, and rather old, calling it "homosexuality" is new.
<quoted text>
Simply pointing out the obvious. Marriage throughout human history as been virtually a male female relationship, either monogamous or polygamous. SSM, except for a few scattered historical examples, is a recent modern Western invention. The collective wisdom of the ages, Mother Nature, to put it anotherway, indicates that the building block of human societies is the union of male and female. Its worked since the dawn of time, why fundamentally alter it now?
You know me, I donít care about historically, historically Christians were murdered for sport and entertainment, historically protestants were burned at the stake for their beliefs, historically women were not allowed a vote and so on and so forth.

Just because something used to be true, doesnít make it a good thing.

There are those that argued that slavery was a building block of society, numerous times through history in many civilizations.

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) 4 hr Bruin For Life 27,924
LMP gang celebrates 31 years (Jun '08) 16 hr La Mirada 1,747
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 18 hr Honestly 5,094
Lawsuits allege OneWest bank can profit from fo... (Feb '10) 23 hr hubertfields00 16
SF gay pride event celebrates 40th anniversary (Jun '10) Wed DrRuth 113
Marine jailed in Mexico on weapons charges awai... Tue nifongnation 2
Imperial/Telegraph car wash sold. McDonald's mo... (Sep '13) Tue gul 19

Brea News Video

Brea Dating
Find my Match

Brea Jobs

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 ]