Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,158

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

“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

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181341 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA
Reply Ľ
|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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181347 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I talked to your sister, she doesnít want you, maybe your goat will.

( chuckle )

Frankie, we all know already, you have no actual interest in poly marriage, you donít actually want to marry your sister, and you are refraining from telling us about your feelings toward you goat.

You only use these subjects as a way to try and attack supporters of Same Sex Marriage

You arenít fooling anyone.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181348 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We can only deny if a group officially asks from a legal perspective, presents the case, builds public support.

that takes some work, work you have already stated you are not willing to do.

( pleas mention Utah, I could use another laugh today )

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#181349 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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?
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.

I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.

I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181350 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Striking down prop 8 bodes well for polgamy.
And I'm very glad that exposes your hypocrisy and makes you very angry.
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181351 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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?
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181352 Feb 26, 2013
Straight not zigzag wrote:
Gross, same sex relationships and marriage is just a perversion of love , next thing you know people who love their Dog so much they marry it. when humans make love they make children and not poop.
Next thing you know, closet queens might be forced out.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181353 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.
Here we go with the NARTH bullshit propaganda spew....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181354 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support gay marriage. What don't you understand about that jackass?
Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181355 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
People who donít have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181356 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.
I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.
I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.
Yes. It is not my place either. To say who can marry and who cannot. I support everyone's right to marry. Not just approved groups.

As a conservative I fully support same sex marriage. It is not the government's place to decide which genders may marry and by the very same logic it is not the governments place to decide the number of participants in that marriage either.

What harm would a loving committed marriage of three men cause anyone? Those against polygamy will probably never even have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family, it will be so rare.

Supporting polygamy causes all hell to break loose on this thread. That speaks volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181357 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
People who donít have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Right. I have no valid argument against same sex marriage. There is none. I support same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181358 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Relax fruitcake, I call my girlfriend and grand kids that. They giggle.

I use it with no sexuality connotation whatsoever. Get that chip off your shoulder Miss Thing.

One more failure in your witch hunt. Try harder.

The "you're lying" straw man. So old.

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
Hemet - The worst city to live in california 13 hr Really 12
bums on bikes 21 hr kmnine 5
Residents Of Hemet, San Jacinto Still Cleaning ... Wed Donna knight 1
corruption with Riverside county CPS Wed Chris 3
Review: Hemet Family Dentist,Dr Vimal Patel,DDS Dec 15 Michael2327 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 15 lupita garcia 8
One dead, one wounded after incident in Hemet p... (Dec '08) Dec 15 Chris 49

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 4:10 am PST