Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 8,453)

Showing posts 169,041 - 169,060 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193723
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignore what exactly?
<quoted text>
Actually it already has.
<quoted text>
Not all polygamists are Mormons. Nor is it a comparison to gay couples.
<quoted text>
Only stupid people fail to realize that gay marriage advocates, like polygamists, faced the same obstacle to legal recognition, the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife nationwide. Now that it is no more, the door is open. SSM has led the way.
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.

"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?

Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?

You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193724
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If a man can marry a man why can't he marry two men?
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?

Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193725
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.
Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.
If you believe that all children do better in intact families--meaning that their biological parents must raise them--then that's what you need to push for.

This would mean:

1.) No divorce for whatever reason. Divorce would be universally banned.

2.) No legal or any type of parental separation. All people must remain in the household with the person who is the father/mother of their children.

3.) No remarrying of any kind after a parent dies. All children must remain with their surviving birth parent. If that birth parent needs help rearing the children, then that help must come from within the extended family.

4.) No unwed parents. All people who have children out of wedlock MUST become married by order of the state.

5.) Adulterers who have children by different mothers/fathers must be required to maintain a double (or triple) spouse home (polygamy) so that the children will be able to be raised by both their mother and their father--even if it means sharing a father with another household.

6.) Foster care programs should cease to operate. If a child's parents dies or becomes physically/mentally unable to raise the children, then the closest living married relatives (grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings) should be required by law to raise the children.

7.) Adoption programs would also cease to exist based on #6.

8.) Couples who have sterility problems should not be allowed to adopt children--even those from outside the U.S.

9.) Abusive parents, neglectful parents, alcoholic/drug dependent parents should never lose custody of their children. Regardless of how horrific the home life of the children being raised, the kids should never be removed.

10.) Parents who break laws requiring jail time should have their sentences postponed until their children reach the age of maturity and can live on their own.

I'm sure there are other, equally ridiculous ways we can come up with to ALWAYS insure that children will have intact families.

This seems to be so very important to you. You don't care what kind of parenting skills a couple of people has, just as long as children ALWAYS stay with their parents.

It's more important to you that kids have an intact home, even when a same-gender couple has the capability of raising a needy child in a functional, supportive, loving environment.

No family is perfect, regardless of the gender combination of the parents. But scientist and common sense indicates that the parenting skills of the couple or individual who raises the kid has the largest impact on the outcome of children.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193726
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
...You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up...
There will be no floods. Those wishing to enter a poly marriage will remain so rare that you will probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193727
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
I support marriage equality, and you do not. LOL. Fricking hypocrite.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193728
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't tend to think it will be that major, either, but we're almost guaranteed at least an incremental win.
I find it hard to believe Prop 8 will still be the law of the land in California. That's a win.
And if section 3 of DOMA is struck down, that's a great time to then go after section 2, IMO.
Yep, a lot of major multi-billion dollar businesses want section 2 to go down, they want to move their people around and the different laws in different states makes that impossible.

it will happen, but it will take time
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193729
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193730
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193731
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
He doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal after…. Zero effect.

Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally don’t have a problem with poly by consenting adults.

But it doesn’t have public support the way Same sex marriage has

He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193732
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
While there certainly are gay polygamists (The Advocate had an article on them recently) there are no "polygamist couples" of any kind.

And you call me an idiot!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193733
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You should try saying something that makes sense. That didn't.
Another stupid bigot.(Cliche. Yawn.)
Hypocrite says what?

P.S. I support same sex marriage. You are very stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193734
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.

The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193735
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal after…. Zero effect.
Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally don’t have a problem with poly by consenting adults.
But it doesn’t have public support the way Same sex marriage has
He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against SSM. What don't you understand about A man and A woman? Does it say men? Does it say women? Always ask for help. Remember, there are no stupid posts, only stupid posters such as yourself.

If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was not, would polygamy be legal? No? What would be stopping it? Prop 8 would! Very good! See?

I'm not a tool in the shed and you are not smart.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193736
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.
The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
I have found that the door to the rainbow room often slams shut when logic comes knocking.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193737
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...

Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too

BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM

The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.

Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.

Darger writes:

“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”

Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.

Darger closes by saying and asking:

“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...

“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”

We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.

Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?

UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
BoytTime

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193738
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

That goofy Michele Backmann isn't running again, I'm happy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193739
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...
Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too
BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM
The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.
Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.
Darger writes:
“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”
Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.
Darger closes by saying and asking:
“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...
“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”
We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.
Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?
UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:
“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
Bravo!

I posted a link to the Slate article but of course it was ridiculed by the people of tolerance and diversity.

Notice all the missing post numbers yesterday. I made some good arguments. Too good it seems.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193740
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious belief is a conduct. You don't pop from the womb a Catholic or a Jew. You are "raised" to be a Catholic or a Jew. You "learn" to become these things.
True.
All of our best information on homosexuality shows that being gay IS NOT something that is learned. You either are or you are not gay. You come from the womb a gay person or a straight person.
That makes homosexuality a "status"--like race and gender.
Not so fast, there are a number of factors involved. Even so, it still involves behavior.
And regarding your last question as to "what state restrictions could ever exist?"; that is the whole point of the court battles, legislative processes, etc. No one is saying that the state can't restrict marriage in whatever way it sees fit. However, the LGBT community is attempting to overturn one of the state's restrictions--namely the law that doesn't allow same-gender partners to marry.
You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up. And we respond by saying that the state will consider each individual issue brought before it, just like it is considering our issue.
What restrictions, beyond age of consent, and being able to consent are there? Opposite sex, not closely related by blood, and not currently legally married. That's it! A few states have dispensed with the opp sex requirement. That leaves number, and blood relation. Which one of those are acceptable to you, and why? Will either one impact you personally?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193741
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

From Pietro's link for those trying to ignore it-

"So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet." -Jillian Keenan.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193742
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against SSM. What don't you understand about A man and A woman? Does it say men? Does it say women? Always ask for help. Remember, there are no stupid posts, only stupid posters such as yourself.
If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was not, would polygamy be legal? No? What would be stopping it? Prop 8 would! Very good! See?
I'm not a tool in the shed and you are not smart.
It also discriminates against marriage to space aliens.( chuckle ) Bring them in and more than double the number of people that will be interested in this aspect.

I understand the entire thing Frankie, I am not the one with a comprehension issues.
If you were honest we could have a conversation
but you aren’t ( shrug )

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 169,041 - 169,060 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Calimesa Discussions

Search the Calimesa Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 29 min Drifting to sleep 4,558
Yucaipa High School teacher arrested for having... 1 hr Random Person 2
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 3 hr Beheheh 15,658
Murder of TRACY WOODS (Jun '12) 6 hr Ramon Jaraba 4
Redlands Cigar Lounge Reopens Apr 15 Dema9o9ue 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Apr 15 lug heads 7,298
Yucapa Valley HS pregnancy club Apr 13 Deeniebeenie 5
•••
•••

Calimesa News Video

•••
•••

Calimesa Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Calimesa People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••