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 7,866)

Showing posts 157,301 - 157,320 of200,204
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180306
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You know damn well I support SSM. How could I not without being a hypocrite like you? The old Big D "you're a liar" straw man.
Any desperation here is yours, you are getting dishonest again and you are not even bothering to conceal your bigotry and hypocrisy.
What you say about "the face of polygamy" is ugly hateful rhetoric NO DIFFERENT from what was said about homosexuals a few decades ago. You thinly disguise it by claiming it's not you, it's everybody else.
No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM

I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position

No one is fooled
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180307
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180308
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are
On the basis of one anonymous phone call (that later appeared to be a hoax), Texas authorities forcibly removed more than 460 children from their parents without evidence of actual abuse in each case. Parents and children were ordered to undergo DNA testing (Who knows how long the state will maintain the DNA database, or to what uses it will be put?), and the children were summarily consigned to the notorious Texas foster-care system.

You approve of this sh!t?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180309
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM
I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position
No one is fooled
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180310
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.

Stephen Stills won’t help you

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180311
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I am not interested in a poly marriage.
I am only interested in discussing it in relation to same marriage equality. As I've told you countless times.
If it upsets you so much or you don't understand my points, it's not my problem, Just stop stalking me creep.
Got it you're a troll.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180312
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
Please provide a link to the news story.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180313
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.
Stephen Stills won’t help you
He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.

You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180314
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180315
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.
A gay-wedding crasher
Editorial
A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
July 31, 2011
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.

The Utah case involves Kody Brown, his legal wife, Meri Brown, and three other "sister wives." It's not actually about marriage, and it doesn't challenge the right of the state to refuse to issue wedding licenses to polygamous families. The Browns are in court because they fear they will be prosecuted.

The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Kennedy emphasized in Lawrence that same-sex marriage wasn't before the court. Similarly, in an interview with the New York Times, Turley suggested that decriminalizing polygamy will not inevitably lead to a movement for polygamous marriage. But language addressed to one issue often surfaces in cases dealing with others. When Massachusetts' highest court decided to strike down the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, it cited the Lawrence opinion.

So is polygamy about to receive the same legal status that same-sex marriage now has in several states? Not in the near term. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage, a prerequisite, some think, for acceptance of polygamous marriage. Meanwhile, the federal court in Utah, in parallel with Lawrence, may rule simply that the Browns and other polygamous families are immune to prosecution but can't have their multiple "spiritual marriages" blessed by the law.

But, like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180316
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.
so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180317
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.
You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?
Oh no, it is your dishonesty that is so funny, I could care less about polygamy, I honestly think you could care less about polygamy too, other than how you can use it to attack supporters of Same Sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180318
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, same sex, poly, incest even, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180319
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.
Big D knows nothing about the subject. According to him there is no one concerned about equal protection for polyamorists except me and some child molesters and welfare cheats.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180320
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Please provide a link to the news story.
I did already several times. In direct posts to you. You ignored it and referred me to your troll vote count.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180321
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
Does there have to be a "major move" before they deserve equal protection? The burden is on you. Tell us why they don't deserve it, don't tell us there are not a lot of people interested.

So what how many people want it? Why does that matter so much to you? That should make you happy,that few people want it, you'll probably never have to be offended by the ugly sight of a happy poly family of say, three men and children.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180322
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
It takes time Big D....you know that.. It has to over come the historical aversion to it, remember Utah, Mormon, Supreme Court. The legal SSM movement has opened the door to the possibility of some form of legalized polygamy.

Who would've thought there'd be a reality show about a polygamous family ten years ago...now there's two. The SSM movement has encouraged plural families to, come out of the closet, to borrow a phrase. In today's social world with nuclear families, blended families, marriage kids divorce remarriage and more kids, multiple baby's mamas and daddies, families headed by SSCs, is a plural family really that unusual?

Americans are serial monogamists. We are blasé about a man fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women, so what wrong with a Brown family arrangement?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180323
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes time Big D....you know that.. It has to over come the historical aversion to it, remember Utah, Mormon, Supreme Court. The legal SSM movement has opened the door to the possibility of some form of legalized polygamy.
Who would've thought there'd be a reality show about a polygamous family ten years ago...now there's two. The SSM movement has encouraged plural families to, come out of the closet, to borrow a phrase. In today's social world with nuclear families, blended families, marriage kids divorce remarriage and more kids, multiple baby's mamas and daddies, families headed by SSCs, is a plural family really that unusual?
Americans are serial monogamists. We are blasé about a man fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women, so what wrong with a Brown family arrangement?
Yes. And how many families are there today where the father has children from two serial wives? Are the half siblings better off with the father and only one of the children's mothers? Or better off with both with their father and both their mothers in the home as a loving family?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180324
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I did already several times. In direct posts to you. You ignored it and referred me to your troll vote count.
I said news story jackass
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180325
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I said news story jackass
Find it yourself clown. The where and when it happened is in her essay. Read it.

What's my vote count? Did you make any more derogatory threads against me since the last few?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 157,301 - 157,320 of200,204
|
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.

10 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 1 hr James Marple 38
Devin F you're my secret crush! 12 hr eye for a eye 5
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 15 hr Punk a s Murabito 4,834
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Tue Sandra 468
Do you approve of Jerry Franchville as Mayor? (Apr '12) Mon JazzerciseHemet 3
hemet fireworks? (Jul '09) Jul 7 Chris 32
Tiny & NOT Mighty Jul 7 Joke is on You 1
•••
•••

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 ]
•••