Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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

Union City, CA

#198243 Jun 26, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You being a self-professed mouth piece, I scoff at you. Gay Americans are driving real change and all you got is sitting on your keester and calling people names. How does it feel to be a powerless wind bag? When are you going to realize that what you think or say has not pertinence to the fight for Gay Rights? You and your silly hater friends are a perfect example of lazy people. All you do is bitch and moan. You haters donít have the drive or intelligence to do more that flap your gums. Honestly, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Gay Americans Rule, haters like you drool. Roflmao
I am not a hater, you are.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
The Fabulous Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#198244 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to enter a polygamous relationship.
I simply want to discuss marriage equality without fear, ridicule and attempts at censorship.
You you're getting your cookies chatting with Power Gays!
.
Kinky!
The Fabulous Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#198245 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a hater, you are.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
earn it

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#198246 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a hater, you are.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
Your response further proves the assertions in my prior post.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#198247 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a hater, you are.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
Are you saying that a gay man or woman should be able to marry multiple partners?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198248 Jun 26, 2013
The Fabulous Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
earn it
Yeah, that's what the iceholes said to you guys not long ago. Now you're the icehole saying it to someone else! Proud of yourself?

Way to go icehole.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198249 Jun 26, 2013
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that a gay man or woman should be able to marry multiple partners?
Yes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198250 Jun 26, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response further proves the assertions in my prior post.
You "ASSerted that I am a hater. But that's not true. I support your right to marry whoever you want. I am not a hater.

But you don't support my right to marry whoever I want, you are a hater.

Hope that helps. It's a simple concept really. Think hard. Ask for help. Sound it out. Remember! There are no dumb posts! Only morons like you.
laughing man

UK

#198251 Jun 26, 2013
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that a gay man or woman should be able to marry multiple partners?
Hell, it's moot at this point. The door has been opened for you people to marry your dogs. Neil Patrick Harris can now fellate his dog on the Tony Awards with no fear of reprisal whatsoever.

Caligula is King Shit, 5 to 4.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198252 Jun 26, 2013
The Fabulous Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
You you're getting your cookies chatting with Power Gays!
.
Kinky!
Relax fruitcake. You spice troopers do nothing for me. Hairy sweaty butts, yuck! One less input. Not for me!
laughing man

UK

#198253 Jun 26, 2013
well

Round Lake, IL

#198254 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You "ASSerted that I am a hater. But that's not true. I support your right to marry whoever you want. I am not a hater.
But you don't support my right to marry whoever I want, you are a hater.
Hey Frankie, I think they are looking for a new leader on the Jeffs Compound. You should apply, you would be great at it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#198255 Jun 26, 2013
Lilith_Satans_Who_re wrote:
<quoted text>who cares... if some dude is crazy enough to put up with several of us hormonal biatches at once good for him
Finally some honest clarity! Good point Lil.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#198256 Jun 26, 2013
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56515337-2...

Polygamists and their supporters celebrated Wednesday, saying they see implications for their cause in the Supreme Courtís ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Just hours after the court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, Joe Darger said he and his family were pleased. Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said the ruling should help remedy polygamistsí treatment as "second-class citizens."

"The government," he said, "canít single out a single class of people for favorable or unfavorable treatment."

Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family ó which is well known from the TV show "Sister Wives" ó is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.

Darger speculated that Waddoups was waiting for the Supreme Courtís ruling to make a decision in the case. In light of DOMAís demise, Darger said, he expects a favorable ruling for the Browns and practitioners of plural marriage.

"This gives Waddoups all the ammunition he needs," Darger added.

Lawyers from the Utah attorney generalís office, which is defending the state against the Browns, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Jerrold Jensen argued in a January hearing that polygamy should remain a criminal offense because practitioners use the word "marriage" to describe their relationships. Jensen also said polygamy is replete with examples of abuse and that every state has laws making it illegal.

Jonathan Turley, the Washington ,D.C.-based lawyer representing the Browns, said the DOMA ruling may not have significant applicability in the case, though he pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the "limited right of the federal government in treating couples differently once they have been recognized as married by a state."

Attorney Ken Driggs, who has studied and written about polygamy, further explained that there are two major issues facing polygamists: decriminalization of their lifestyle and legal recognition of their marriages. He said most practicing polygamists simply want decriminalization.

According to Turley, Wednesdayís decisions will have limited impact on decriminalization. Turley explained that the issue surrounding the DOMA and Proposition 8 rulings was the legal recognition of certain kinds of relationships, not criminalization.

"Our case is about the criminalization of relationships, rather than the recognition," Turley added. "What does help us is the reaffirmation of the court that these relationships are protected by due process."

Perhaps the most significant development in regards to polygamy, Turley explained, was the courtís shift away from morality as a justification of law.

"Only Justice [Antonin] Scalia and Justice [Clarence] Thomas," he said, "continued to argue in favor of morality legislation."

Driggs said that, while the rulings may be beneficial, "plural marriage is a big step beyond anything in these opinions."
LLE

Pacific Palisades, CA

#198257 Jun 26, 2013
Now all those DL guys will have a harder time finding fellatio without disrupting the lives of other married couples. You know who you are, and this community is loaded with y'all, lol.
xolo

Long Beach, CA

#198259 Jun 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does someone challenging your position on dumbing down marriage to impose an impostor relationship bother you so much?
If it is right and reasonable, you could simply and clearly show it as so, instead of throwing out a 'hate' gay troll attack.
I'd be happy to engage you in a rational debate, but your opening points above are not going to make it.
Please look in the mirror. You need to address your internal issues and realize that you are really lashing out at yourself over and over again. Try to figure out why...your life will be much better once you get over what is troubling you. I hope you feel better soon! Peace.
xolo

Long Beach, CA

#198260 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sha Na Na ?
Where is the line drawn? If any consenting adult relationship can b designated "marriage" by the state, what is the point of even recognizing it at all?
That is a good question. Why is the government involved at all in relationships? I don't know the answer.
xolo

Long Beach, CA

#198261 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is that polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage, dummy. As I said in the post you responded to. Duh.
You have failed.
You just failed again and do not even realize it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#198262 Jun 26, 2013
Lulu predicted this outcome over a year ago.

Lulu Rocks.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#198263 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mob ile3/56515337-219/marriage-dar ger-polygamy-case.html.csp
Polygamists and their supporters celebrated Wednesday, saying they see implications for their cause in the Supreme Courtís ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Just hours after the court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, Joe Darger said he and his family were pleased. Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said the ruling should help remedy polygamistsí treatment as "second-class citizens."
"The government," he said, "canít single out a single class of people for favorable or unfavorable treatment."
Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family ó which is well known from the TV show "Sister Wives" ó is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.
Darger speculated that Waddoups was waiting for the Supreme Courtís ruling to make a decision in the case. In light of DOMAís demise, Darger said, he expects a favorable ruling for the Browns and practitioners of plural marriage.
"This gives Waddoups all the ammunition he needs," Darger added.
Lawyers from the Utah attorney generalís office, which is defending the state against the Browns, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Jerrold Jensen argued in a January hearing that polygamy should remain a criminal offense because practitioners use the word "marriage" to describe their relationships. Jensen also said polygamy is replete with examples of abuse and that every state has laws making it illegal.
Jonathan Turley, the Washington ,D.C.-based lawyer representing the Browns, said the DOMA ruling may not have significant applicability in the case, though he pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the "limited right of the federal government in treating couples differently once they have been recognized as married by a state."
Attorney Ken Driggs, who has studied and written about polygamy, further explained that there are two major issues facing polygamists: decriminalization of their lifestyle and legal recognition of their marriages. He said most practicing polygamists simply want decriminalization.
According to Turley, Wednesdayís decisions will have limited impact on decriminalization. Turley explained that the issue surrounding the DOMA and Proposition 8 rulings was the legal recognition of certain kinds of relationships, not criminalization.
"Our case is about the criminalization of relationships, rather than the recognition," Turley added. "What does help us is the reaffirmation of the court that these relationships are protected by due process."
Perhaps the most significant development in regards to polygamy, Turley explained, was the courtís shift away from morality as a justification of law.
"Only Justice [Antonin] Scalia and Justice [Clarence] Thomas," he said, "continued to argue in favor of morality legislation."
Driggs said that, while the rulings may be beneficial, "plural marriage is a big step beyond anything in these opinions."
Give it up.

Nobody is buying that crap.

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.

Crows Landing Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What's that factory west of I-5 at Crow's Landing? (Apr '06) May 23 Mike Daniels 60
housewife May 20 dwarka123 15
Turlock Woman Critical after being Shot by Ex-H... Jan '15 Angelica Campos 2
News 44 claim fraud to the tune of $3.2M (Mar '09) Aug '14 KeS 7
Election Who do you support for State Senate in Californ... (Oct '10) Sep '12 Jose luis flores 6
Debate: Immigrants & K-12 - Crows Landing, CA (Dec '11) Dec '11 TriciaToyota 1
Election Who do you support for State Assembly in Califo... (Nov '10) Nov '10 rick 1
More from around the web

Crows Landing People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]