Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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.

Full Story
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181246 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there has to be a call for change, it doesnít happen on its own
and that takes effort and people willing to make that call.
that happened with slavery, that happened with women getting the vote, it happened with the end of Jim Crow laws, and it has happened with Gay Marriage
That has NOT happened with Poly, as most ( not all ) are in groups that have withdrawn themselves into secluded and reclusive places and donít care about or even want government recognition.
For any major change, there needs to be an active constituency for it, there has to be a call for it.
Whining by people on an internet forum, specifically from people that are not particularly interested in it other than how they can use it to attack others is not going to make it happen.
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181247 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there has to be a call for change, it doesnít happen on its own
and that takes effort and people willing to make that call.
that happened with slavery, that happened with women getting the vote, it happened with the end of Jim Crow laws, and it has happened with Gay Marriage
That has NOT happened with Poly, as most ( not all ) are in groups that have withdrawn themselves into secluded and reclusive places and donít care about or even want government recognition.
For any major change, there needs to be an active constituency for it, there has to be a call for it.
Whining by people on an internet forum, specifically from people that are not particularly interested in it other than how they can use it to attack others is not going to make it happen.
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181248 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there has to be a call for change, it doesnít happen on its own
and that takes effort and people willing to make that call.
that happened with slavery, that happened with women getting the vote, it happened with the end of Jim Crow laws, and it has happened with Gay Marriage
That has NOT happened with Poly, as most ( not all ) are in groups that have withdrawn themselves into secluded and reclusive places and donít care about or even want government recognition.
For any major change, there needs to be an active constituency for it, there has to be a call for it.
Whining by people on an internet forum, specifically from people that are not particularly interested in it other than how they can use it to attack others is not going to make it happen.
"Every great movement begins with one man." - Charlie Sheen.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181249 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there has to be a call for change, it doesnít happen on its own
and that takes effort and people willing to make that call.
that happened with slavery, that happened with women getting the vote, it happened with the end of Jim Crow laws, and it has happened with Gay Marriage
That has NOT happened with Poly, as most ( not all ) are in groups that have withdrawn themselves into secluded and reclusive places and donít care about or even want government recognition.
For any major change, there needs to be an active constituency for it, there has to be a call for it.
Whining by people on an internet forum, specifically from people that are not particularly interested in it other than how they can use it to attack others is not going to make it happen.
There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.

They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.

I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181250 Feb 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.
They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.
I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.
Yes, poly is in the same place SSM was a decade or so ago, that is what I have been saying from the beginning.

When there is enough of a call for it, from responsible people, it will probably happen. It will take some work, just as it is for SSM
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181251 Feb 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.
They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.
I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.
By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you arenít bright enough to recognize that yet.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181252 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, poly is in the same place SSM was a decade or so ago, that is what I have been saying from the beginning.
When there is enough of a call for it, from responsible people, it will probably happen. It will take some work, just as it is for SSM
Sure. Responsible people, meaning anyone but me I suppose.

You can discuss traveling to Mars without knowing the date it will be possible and I can discuss polygamy without knowing the date when it will be possible.

Your beginnings of reasonableness about it is the result of my tireless effort.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181253 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you arenít bright enough to recognize that yet.
Yeah, sure. You're not opposed to those child molesting welfare cheats, it's those other people who are.

We've been through all this before.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181256 Feb 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you arenít bright enough to recognize that yet.
Relax fruitloops.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#181258 Feb 25, 2013

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181259 Feb 25, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
And we all know that you are too ugly to even dare to show your mug.
LOL. No, stupid, things like you are amoral, racist and dangerous, so I won't show my face. That's the reason.
YOU are ugly, so ugly, Topix kicked you off because you wouldn't take your pic down again.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181260 Feb 25, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And I bet that you wish that your mother had named you Rose, instead of Rebekah, or LaQueesha, or whatever...
See what I mean about your being racist.
Why lie and say you are Wiccan?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181261 Feb 25, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believes what Rose? Again you are incoherent and off topic.
I went away for a couple months, and I swear in that time you have actually managed to get dumber.
Did they let you out finally? Well, keep taking your meds on schedule, or they might have to come get you again, stupid.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181262 Feb 25, 2013
For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181263 Feb 25, 2013
Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181264 Feb 25, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...

Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, 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

#181265 Feb 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".
Why are you a hypocrite?

Polygamy is marriage. poly+marriage. Just like same sex+marriage.
It deserves the same respect and consideration as any other marriage.

Please tell us why you believe it doesn't, bigot. We won't wait.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181266 Feb 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.
There are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. It should be allowed.

What are your rational arguments against poly marriage? The answer is not "because it is a red herring" or "it's a whole separate issue, it just is," or similar Rose_NoHo stupidity.

Why would you tell three committed men wishing to marry no, because it's a fish? Or no. it's "a separate issue"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181270 Feb 25, 2013
On May 6, 2009, the State of Maine became the fifth U.S. State to codify the legal construct of "same sex marriage." Supporters labeled the passage of the new law as a "civil rights victory," a matter of "fairness and equality" for "all" as well as "equal protection under the law." The new law was titled, "L.D. 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." But the Act, itself, very specifically does "discriminate" - against consenting adult polygamists.

On April 22, 2009, up to 4,000 Maine citizens attended the Public Hearing at the Augusta Civic Center. As expected, marriage controllers opposed the law, wanting to continue special rights only for those who choose "one man, one woman." Homosexuals and supporters wanted to further expand the receipt of those special rights to those who choose "same sex marriage" too.

Mark Henkel, speaking as the National Polygamy Advocate and as a Maine citizen, also made a presentation at the Hearing - as "Neither For Nor Against." When he stood up to speak, the entire room immediately hushed, except for the overwhelming clicking sound of numerous media cameras on him. He noted that both homosexuals and marriage controllers re-define marriage. Factually, polygamy has always been included in the definition. Henkel offered the polygamy rights win-win solution to end the government marriage debate, the abolition of all big government marriage control for unrelated consenting adults. When he had finished, many people approached him, expressing their surprise and support for the alternative proposal. Despite the crush of photography, the major Maine media chose only to "sell" L.D. 1020 to persuade their audiences.

Over the subsequent two weeks, the bill was rushed through the Legislature and was immediately signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6th Ė extremely quickly, indeed.

Previously opposing "gay marriage" in favor of civil unions, the Governor explained, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the lawÖ Under the Constitution, we are all the same. We are supposed to make sure we are all protected from discrimination, regardless of the differences between us. My responsibility, that I swore an oath to do, is that I'm there for everybody."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181271 Feb 25, 2013
Homosexual political activists, identifying themselves as fighting for the "civil rights" of the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered" (GLBT) community, rejoiced in the new statute. Declaring that the new law was simply about "fairness and equality" for "all," they proclaimed that Maine had supposedly "ended discrimination" for "everyone."

But the law did no such thing.

Indeed, it begins by codifying the re-defining-parameter of marriage as "2 people." Namely, in Sec. 2, L.D. 1020 declares, "19-A MRSA ß650-A is enacted to read: Codification of marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people." It would thus seem that the homosexual activists are not really fighting for the "civil rights" of the "B" in GLBT, after all. Apparently, homosexuals - despite their claims - do not really believe that "bisexuals" are "born that way."

But seriously, way beyond "bisexuals" and the humor of that obvious dichotomy, the new law does take that numerical "discrimination" further. In Sec. 6., the new law re-writes 19-A MRSA ß701, Prohibited marriage.

The original ß701 statute had been delineated into the following Clauses. 1. Marriage out of State to evade law. 1-A. Certain marriages performed in another state not recognized in this State. 2. Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity. 3. Persons under disability. 4. Polygamy. 5. Same sex marriage prohibited.

The last two Clauses had originally declared the following. "4. Polygamy. A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom the party is not divorced is void." "5. Same sex marriage prohibited. Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage."

L.D. 1020 strikes out Clause 5 ("same sex marriage") completely and alters Clause 1-A to apply only to Clauses 2-4 instead of 2-5. But Clause 4 was left intact - still prohibiting polygamy.

If keeping one and striking out the other Clause had happened in reverse, homosexuals would be screaming, "Discrimination! Bigotry!"

At the Public Hearing, when marriage controllers had argued against L.D. 1020, saying that children need a father and a mother, homosexuals responded that children only need two adults. Yet, Maine's new law "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamy, even though it fulfills both arguments - and more! As Mark Henkel asked everyone, "If Heather can have two mommies, why can't she have two mommies and a daddy?"

For all the hype of supposed "equality" for "all," L.D. 1020 completely left consenting adult polygamists "unequal" indeed. As for "fairness," Maine's Bigamy law actually criminalizes the very free speech itself of a married man, for only saying an unlicensed "girlfriend" is a "wife." Indeed, 17-A MRSA Pt 2, Ch 23,ß551 declares: "A person is guilty of bigamy if, having a spouse, he intentionally marries or purports to marry, knowing that he is legally ineligible to do so." The argument of "fairness" is utterly ignored for consenting adult polygamists.

Hence, Maine's "same sex marriage" law is really not "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage" at all. The law brings no "equality and fairness" for consenting adult polygamists, and especially no "equal protection under the law." By the same terms of the law's supporters, "discrimination" against consenting adult polygamy has not been ended.

Instead, government marriage control continues... just re-defined.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php...

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
corruption with Riverside county CPS 10 hr SAD BUT TRUE 11
How come all Hemet sex offenders addresses aren... (Dec '08) Thu lARRY mILLER9626 12
Review: R G Deck Coatings Inc Thu Annonymous 1
San Jacinto Woman Accused of Stabbing Boyfriend... Dec 24 lupita garcia 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 23 Amazed 12
San JacintoUnlock parks, San Jacinto residents say Dec 22 SJskin 1
Water main Break Shadow Mountain Way Dec 22 hemetone 2

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:28 am PST