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
155,701 - 155,720 of 200,349 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178564
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...as there are groups of people that have put a stain on that concept that will linger for some time...
That's ignorance and bigotry.

Some homosexuals are bad too. Does that mean we should not allow SSM? Of course not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178565
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Gullibility of Hate, it is a fact that you are merely the stupid one. Is that all you call people, when you see they are far more intellectual and much more dynamic cognitively?
Jen Ewe Wine LOL!

Point out to me where Brian_G has proven, with valid evidence and argument, that same sex marriage will create FORCED marriages in prison. His evidence to date consists of 3 same sex marriages performed in Canadian federal prisons since 2005. Bubbas are just lining up to force their weak little cell mates to marry 'em aren't they?

I call people stupid when they've made it painfully clear that they are. Got it, stupid?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178566
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is evil, I have good solid evidence to support it!
I have proof that you are an ignorant moron
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178567
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ignorance and bigotry.
Some homosexuals are bad too. Does that mean we should not allow SSM? Of course not.
On their part, yes it is, their ignorance and bigotry has doomed your obsession for the next couple of decades at least. Not because I say so, it is the simple truth

It doesn’t matter what I think of it, or you, you can rant and scream like a little kid all day long, it wont change a thing.

However I am willing to make you a wager,( never give a sucker an even break) that nothing will come of it legally for the next couple of decades.

Not because I say so, just an observation

SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.
Candles

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178568
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

The cathloic church took your money before and yor children's vrginity and how, Archdiocese weighs huge fund drive amid scandal.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178569
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
On their part, yes it is, their ignorance and bigotry has doomed your obsession for the next couple of decades at least. Not because I say so, it is the simple truth
It doesn’t matter what I think of it, or you, you can rant and scream like a little kid all day long, it wont change a thing.
However I am willing to make you a wager,( never give a sucker an even break) that nothing will come of it legally for the next couple of decades.
Not because I say so, just an observation
SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.
So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.

Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178570
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.
You know I support same sex marriage, don't start lying again.

And you know I am not obsessed with polygamy. I'm real tired of your dishonest tactics.
GlendoraTimes

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178571
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

A Southland U.S. postal worker was on unpaid leave Feburary 05, 2013 Tuesday after assaulting an 11-year-old girl.

Several witness have placed the postal worker with is hands around young girls neck.

play

Postal worker placed on leave after alleged assault
Claudia Peschiutta

00:00

Download


Villasenor, 55, of Temple City, was allegedly involved in a choking incident on Monday afternoon at a bathroom at Bristow Park in the city of Commerce, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

When deputies from the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station arrived, the young girl told deputies that a postal worker had choked her with his hands for laughing at him when he tried to use the restroom facilities and inadvertently entered the women’s restroom.



U.S. Postal Service spokesman Richard Maher told Peschiutta the veteran letter carrier was on duty when he allegedly went after the girl.

“We have taken him off duty and placed him in a non-pay status while the incident is being investigated,” said Maher.

Villasenor has worked for the Postal Service since 1981.

KCAL9&#8242;s Suraya Fadel reports there was no response when she knocked at the door of Villasenor’s Temple City residence even though it was clear there were people inside the home.

Villasenor is being held at the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station. His bail has been set at $100,000.

The investigation is being handled by the Sheriff’s Department’s Special Victims Bureau.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178572
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.
Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.
Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesn’t matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.

did you want to make the wager?
Arrest Mahony

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178577
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Cardinal Roger Mahony shielded abusive priests for decades.

Because of legal stalling, hypocritical posturing and a statute of limitations for prosecuting offenders guilty of child endangerment, Mahony may avoid arrest, indictment and conviction.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178578
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesn’t matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.
did you want to make the wager?
No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?

Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:

-I don't care.
-Polygamists are bad people.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.

Did I miss any?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178580
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D can't tolerate other peoples opinions, thats his bigotry he has.
It isn’t an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie don’t understand.

it doesn’t matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didn’t say me ), specifically voters.

I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.

You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178581
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?
Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:
-I don't care.
-Polygamists are bad people.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.
Did I miss any?
lets see

-I don't care.... true
-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178583
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/...

The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy

by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012

I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?

A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.

Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.

When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?

However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.

The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.

“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.

Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.

The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.

The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.

This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.


Contact Rachel Jackson at r.jackson@chronicle.utah.edu
PDeolight

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178584
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Where is your PDeolight?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178585
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand you firmly believe that, but there is no argument that marriage is deemed a basic civil and human right in our country.
When you wish to prevent a group from exercising a civil right, you must prove without a shadow of a doubt that their exercise of that right will harm themselves, others, and\or society.
There ARE no other arguments that are valid in these cases. Religious disapproval doesn't matter. Whether that group is liked or trusted doesn't matter.
We live in a free country, and sometimes that's messy. There will be people legally doing things that WE would never choose to do, and our disapproval alone is not a reason to changes laws to restrict other people's behavior.
There needs to be a concrete reason to do so.
And try as you might, you really can't find one here, and you know it. If you could, you wouldn't be grasping at straws.
"Must prove harm"???

Who says that is the litmus test?

You just walked by selectively adding one group to another group for no reason while denying it to a host of other groups.

The first litmus test is this;

Why should we newly equate one group out of numerous to a historic cultural group?

That requires the identification of what distinguishes the first group (marriage), and then equating or not other groups to it.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are clearly a blunder of the the fundamental goal of evolution.

There needs to be a concrete reason to do so. And try as you might, you really can't find one here, and you know it. If you could, you wouldn't be grasping at straws.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178586
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Must prove harm"???
Who says that is the litmus test?.
Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.

You can’t just deny people the right to happiness just because you don’t like them. You aren’t royalty, you don’t get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.

You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.

You are on the wrong side of history.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178587
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

CacheFly wrote:
Who is going to listen to some idiot from the UK, who were kicked out of the USA in 1776 for their english stupity.
say what?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178588
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie don’t understand.
it doesn’t matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didn’t say me ), specifically voters.
I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.
You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference
I nave never made an argument that poly will be legal soon and you know it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178589
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.
You can’t just deny people the right to happiness just because you don’t like them. You aren’t royalty, you don’t get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.
You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.
You are on the wrong side of history.
Same with polygamy. How would a marriage of three women harm you? How would a marriage of two men and one woman harm you? How would a marriage of three women and a man harm you?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

18 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 4 hr Eainca 4,887
Now what? 12 hr apt crime 8
hemet police not doing their job 12 hr hpd great 25
is there a hobby shop in town? (Aug '11) 17 hr comic store somewhere 6
Front Yard Junk 17 hr cactus 19
western dental hiring 17 hr teeth cleaning 3
crime here out of control (Aug '09) 17 hr need more police 57
•••
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••