Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Dorn

Altadena, CA

#181326 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior.
What does that mean in part?
A constraint on the evolutionary PRIORITY to pass DNA along to as many as possible. Marriage actually constrains the evolutionary desire for numerous mates, and requires the male care for their offspring and support the mother.
What you actually point out is clear evidence that homosexuality is a genetic DEFECT.
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.
Marriage was probably invented by men because of a shortage of women as other men had too many wives.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181327 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
POS try again.
Hi Frankiee, why are you so angry?
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#181328 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha ha. People denied the right to marry because they are "an offence against society" so funny.
What possible harm would a marriage of three women cause you or anyone else?

If enough men married three women, there would not be enought women to go aroung, and some men would not be able to get a single women to marry.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181329 Feb 26, 2013
You know that marriage, of any sort is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Now some feel that this clause,"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does this, however its just a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless it is not in the Constitution. Each state shall construct thier own set of laws, given that the laws do not over ride the Constitution. Many states have laws banning same sex marriage, as they, the law makers have defined marriage between one man and one woman. A few states now recognize same sex marriage, due to discriminatory laws, that ban them. One can only look to Iowa and see that. Now in the case of California, same sex marriage was legal, albeit for a short time, it was nevertheless legal. The legislators then put a voting initiative before the citizens of that state, asking if same sex marriage should be allowed. Now this happened on more than one occasion. As we all know the voters approved the measure, and later a Federal Judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional. You see one a right has been granted, its hard to remove it for a select group, Gays and Lesbians, based upon thier sexuality.

Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage as it does not affect any standing laws with regards to divorce, Social security, medicare, medicaid, insurance, drivers licenses etc. The laws as they stand will work seamlessly. That how ever can not be said for Polygamy. Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181330 Feb 26, 2013
Dorn wrote:
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha ha. People denied the right to marry because they are "an offence against society" so funny.
What possible harm would a marriage of three women cause you or anyone else?
If enough men married three women, there would not be enought women to go aroung, and some men would not be able to get a single women to marry.
That happens now with losers like Jizzybird. That's the way it is with or without poly marriage. Some men cannot score!

And the numbers will be so tiny, there won't be that many poly marriages to offend bigots like Jizybird's sensibilities anyway.

And of course there may be as many or more women who want multiple men. Just like now!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181331 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.

His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181332 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
You know that marriage, of any sort is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Now some feel that this clause,"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does this, however its just a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless it is not in the Constitution. Each state shall construct thier own set of laws, given that the laws do not over ride the Constitution. Many states have laws banning same sex marriage, as they, the law makers have defined marriage between one man and one woman. A few states now recognize same sex marriage, due to discriminatory laws, that ban them. One can only look to Iowa and see that. Now in the case of California, same sex marriage was legal, albeit for a short time, it was nevertheless legal. The legislators then put a voting initiative before the citizens of that state, asking if same sex marriage should be allowed. Now this happened on more than one occasion. As we all know the voters approved the measure, and later a Federal Judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional. You see one a right has been granted, its hard to remove it for a select group, Gays and Lesbians, based upon thier sexuality.
Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage as it does not affect any standing laws with regards to divorce, Social security, medicare, medicaid, insurance, drivers licenses etc. The laws as they stand will work seamlessly. That how ever can not be said for Polygamy. Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
The "it's too complicated" denial of equal protection. Heard it from lots of other dummies. It's bogus. And a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not say "unless it would be complicated."

Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE. That's what equal means dummy. And that's how it should be. And that's how t is. Like it or lump it.

Poly MARRIAGE won't hurt you or anyone else. It deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. They are both MARRIAGE and my choice is as good as your choice.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181333 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.
His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
Yes it is. He will not debate the subject. Just copy cut and paste. Its kind of like herding cats, it just does not work.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181334 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.
His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
That's the most common tactic the dumb bigots against same sex marriage use. I see you have picked it up as very witty. It's not. It's stupid. Like the dopes that use it as a justification to deny rights.(you). Goats cannot enter into contracts anyway.

Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.

Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181335 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE......
Actually, you left out the first logical step.

In reality, it's the current ability of heterosexuals to marry that is the leading cause for other groups to demand the right to legally marry. Same sex couples are only asking for the SAME right to marry just one person.

However, same sex couples wanting the SAME right to marry one that already exists for ever heterosexual in the country is not similar to straight people demanding the right to marry, not only ONE, but many at one time.

Separate issues. Separate effects on society.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181336 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "it's too complicated" denial of equal protection. Heard it from lots of other dummies. It's bogus. And a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not say "unless it would be complicated."
Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE. That's what equal means dummy. And that's how it should be. And that's how t is. Like it or lump it.
Poly MARRIAGE won't hurt you or anyone else. It deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. They are both MARRIAGE and my choice is as good as your choice.
But why do something that complex when few are even calling for it?

There aren’t people out there getting signatures for propositions, except perhaps in your great state of marriage equality, Utah ( that is so funny, best laugh I have had on these forums yet, thanks )

Until there is actually a call for it, by people that are actually interested in investing their lives and donate for the cause as has happened with other such social change, nothing is going to happen.

so far all we have are fairly reclusive groups that don’t even want government recognition, and a lunatic on an internet forum that has already admitted he is not personally interested in poly marriage at all.

Why would we change a plethora of civil laws, when no constituency is calling for it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181337 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. He will not debate the subject. Just copy cut and paste. Its kind of like herding cats, it just does not work.
You hit it on the head, it is a copy and paste argument, it is a play book used for decades against SSM, and meaningless

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181338 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "it's too complicated" denial of equal protection. Heard it from lots of other dummies. It's bogus. And a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not say "unless it would be complicated."
Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE. That's what equal means dummy. And that's how it should be. And that's how t is. Like it or lump it.
Poly MARRIAGE won't hurt you or anyone else. It deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. They are both MARRIAGE and my choice is as good as your choice.
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.

wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child

The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.

He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.

The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?

As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181340 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the most common tactic the dumb bigots against same sex marriage use. I see you have picked it up as very witty. It's not. It's stupid. Like the dopes that use it as a justification to deny rights.(you). Goats cannot enter into contracts anyway.
Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.
Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?
We have discussed that, waiting for news on your proposal to your goat

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181341 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#181334 55 min ago
Judged:
4
4
4
Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.

Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?

Here ya go Frankie

Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181342 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have discussed that, waiting for news on your proposal to your goat
That's the same dumb putdown and argument bigots use against same sex marriage. It's really dumb.

Why are you a dumb angry bigot?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181343 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
The legal aspects of granting same sex marriage are pretty simple. Not much different than for traditional marriage. The legal aspects of polygamy will be more complicated. But not preventative. They are much less complicated than you think. They can easily be worked out.

But that's irrelevant. It's no reason to deny equal protection. Try again.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181344 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit it on the head, it is a copy and paste argument, it is a play book used for decades against SSM, and meaningless
It's way better than your "marry your goat" argument against marriage equality.

It's almost unbelievable you are so stupid as to use that dumb argument and not notice you're acting just like the bigots against SSM.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181345 Feb 26, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many 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?
Batting order

Covina, CA

#181346 Feb 26, 2013
Hi rizzo, aren't you going to be next up on the trial court issues in the city of Bell, California?

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
soboba indains beat teen girls 2x while walking... (Sep '09) 9 hr Hpinkmi 13
News Gay priest from Redlands discusses sexuality, r... (Feb '15) Nov 29 Mike 11
Are black people afraid of if crosswalks? (Jan '12) Nov 28 Regolith Based Li... 22
young gay guys in hemet (Oct '14) Nov 28 tellinitlikeitis 17
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Nov 26 Realest 154
Menifee- will it take a turn for the worst? (Aug '09) Nov 23 Pantiks 92
Doctors in area Nov 20 Shelly92 1

Hemet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages