Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181550 Feb 27, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Link
In the Brown lawsuit, Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba said the Brown family, members of the Apostolic United Brethren faith, has committed no crime except to live together,“motivated by their sincere religious beliefs and love for one another.”

States cannot “criminalize consensual intimate relationships, including homosexual relationships, between unmarried adults,” the lawyers wrote, citing the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

And yet Utah has a law that forbids a legally married person from “purport[ing] to marry another person or cohabit[ing] with another person,” the lawyers wrote.

With this and other anti-polygamy laws, Utah “criminalizes not just polygamous marriages, but also an array of plural intimate relationships and associations of consenting adults,” Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba wrote.

The Brown family’s “basic liberties and equal protection” are being violated, they added, asking the court to “preliminarily and permanently” block enforcement of Utah’s laws that ban and criminalize polygamy.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181551 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, dumbo? You think when DOMA and Prop 8 go down, polygamy will become legal in California??? Really? What about California laws against bigamy? Did they just evaporate on your planet?
Prop 8 being defeated is one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy in California.

Glad that makes you so angry! It makes me happy, I like equal rights for everyone. And especially for people you don't approve of.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181552 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is your long angry rants are straw men. Designed to avoid the real argument that you have lost long ago.
You say the same dumb things over and over hoping for the desired effect that never comes.
I am not trying to avoid the real argument, about the overturn of Prop 8 in California :)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181553 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so silly. This is a discussion forum.
I can discuss marriage equality for polygamists without a personal interest in a poly marriage and you can discuss same sex marriage without a personal interest in a same sex marriage.
I can discuss poly marriage without going out in the streets and campaigning, and you can discuss same sex marriage without going out in the streets and campaigning.
I am mostly the only one attempting to discuss marriage equality here. If I wasn't here this thread would be dead as a door nail.
Your attempts to censor me speak volumes. Why do you not give poly marriage the same consideration as same sex marriage?
I never said I didn’t

I’m not trying to censor you, I am just pointing out what you are doing to any newcomers so they don’t mistakenly take you as sincere, so they know you attack any supporters of SSM and are just using Poly as a way to do so.

Anyone that has been here a while already knows
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181554 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Brown lawsuit, Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba said the Brown family, members of the Apostolic United Brethren faith, has committed no crime except to live together,“motivated by their sincere religious beliefs and love for one another.”
States cannot “criminalize consensual intimate relationships, including homosexual relationships, between unmarried adults,” the lawyers wrote, citing the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
And yet Utah has a law that forbids a legally married person from “purport[ing] to marry another person or cohabit[ing] with another person,” the lawyers wrote.
With this and other anti-polygamy laws, Utah “criminalizes not just polygamous marriages, but also an array of plural intimate relationships and associations of consenting adults,” Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba wrote.
Ok....that's their argument... did the Court rule yet?

You do realize that the Brown's are NOT asking to have their marriage legally recognized, right?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181555 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 being defeated is one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy in California.
Glad that makes you so angry! It makes me happy, I like equal rights for everyone. And especially for people you don't approve of.
Was that an "ooops, I was wrong?" I didn't think so.... you don't have it in you to be honest.

p.s. your "angry" argument is a strawman.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181556 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I didn’t
I’m not trying to censor you, I am just pointing out what you are doing to any newcomers so they don’t mistakenly take you as sincere, so they know you attack any supporters of SSM and are just using Poly as a way to do so.
Anyone that has been here a while already knows
Yep, but most have left.... looks like a few of us get some good giggles at Frankie's expense, though. And in a few months, this topic will be completely moot. So, I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. Cheers!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181557 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Glad that makes you so angry! It makes me happy, I like equal rights for everyone.
Well, aren't you the great humanitarian.....

Unfortunately, here in the USA, there is no Constitution guarantee of equal rights. The guarantee is equal protection under the law. How many times does that need to be repeated before learning occurs with you?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181558 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Ok....that's their argument... did the Court rule yet?
You do realize that the Brown's are NOT asking to have their marriage legally recognized, right?
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.

That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181559 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not trying to avoid the real argument, about the overturn of Prop 8 in California :)
The slippery slope argument is VERY RELEVANT to the argument for same sex marriage. I have tried many times to tell you how to deal with it eloquently and intelligently. So that maybe someone will pay attention and realize yes it is real, but it DOESN'T MATTER. I can tell you reasons it doesn't matter.

But you refuse to listen preferring to shout it down and censor it as a way of dealing with it. Your approach is stupid. No one will change their minds when you act like that. Indeed, they will dig in deeper.

Your approach is counterproductive, achieving the opposite effect than what you hope.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181561 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Was that an "ooops, I was wrong?" I didn't think so.... you don't have it in you to be honest.
p.s. your "angry" argument is a strawman.
No your response is.

If the archaic federal law is repealed, as it should be because it's based on ignorance and prejudice, there will be one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy.

California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.

You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181563 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Your approach is counterproductive, achieving the opposite effect than what you hope.
If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181564 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, aren't you the great humanitarian.....
Unfortunately, here in the USA, there is no Constitution guarantee of equal rights. The guarantee is equal protection under the law. How many times does that need to be repeated before learning occurs with you?
There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, Miss Thing. Even for people you don't approve of.

When the federal law aginst poly is repealed, state laws will be easy to overcome. State laws to protect public morality by prohibiting what has been regarded as immoral sexual conduct just can't stand constitutional scrutiny.

Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181565 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.
No it isn't. Bigamy laws were on the books well before DOMA.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181566 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.
As it is now, the government doesn't recognize poly so only one wife can receive benefits through her husband. The others are considered single mothers and get lots of free stuff as such. More than they would if the government recognized the wives.

So your "welfare cheat" argument is really stupid, it's caused by idiots like you and the government's dumb policies. To blame it on polygamists is ridiculous.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181567 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181568 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?
More ad hominem dopiness.

Anything to avoid the slippery slope argument which is easily countered, But you are too dumb to do it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181569 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?
Except I haven't made any. Try a different strawman, maybe?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181570 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.
I dont think the Brown case has anything to do with Prop 8

You are right
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181571 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.
HA HA! So funny! A criminal case against someone based on their choice of who to marry and love. What a riot.

Brown said "There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”

On 1 June 2012, the criminal case against the Browns was dropped. However the suit filed by the Browns remains active after a federal judge refused to dismiss it, saying "strategic attempt to use the mootness doctrine to evade review in this case draws into question the sincerity of [the Utah County Attorney’s] contention that prosecution of plaintiffs for violating this statute is unlikely to recur".

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
News Pagans Out Of The 'Broom Closet' In Southwest R... (Jan '10) 1 min indano 241
Man assaults kids at McDonalds-east florida on ... (Jul '13) Sat Mama told you so 151
bum groups everywhere now! Sat Tent city 3
U.S. Post Office SUCKS (Apr '11) Aug 27 Uk king 98
stetson townhomes (Aug '13) Aug 25 Unknown 11
how to rent to sex offenders Aug 25 So long kitty 2
Local Politics Do you approve of Jerry Franchville as Mayor? (Apr '12) Aug 24 S. Sniff 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages