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
158,561 - 158,580 of 200,564 Comments Last updated 13 hrs ago

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181682
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great argument against true marriage equality fruitcake! One of your best so far.
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.

At any rate, the man who beats polygamy to death is hardly capable of recognizing a valid argument.

“MASTER of ths skin flute”

Since: Feb 13

QUEEN CREEK, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181683
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

IS THIS THING ON ???!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181684
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

7

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you asked:
1)You keep harping on polygamy and the perceived parallel it holds to Gay Marriage even though you yourself have said you aren’t interested in polygamy for yourself. I believe you hate fuels this obsession.
It could also be a valid question to raise in the debate, one that seems to evoke mixed emotions among SSM supporters.
2)You continually call Gay Americans and our supporter’s derogatory names. This is a typical hater tactic to marginalize Gay Americans. Additionally, I think you do this to garner attention.
As do some supporters of SSM towards those who oppose it.
3)Your posts always attack Gay Americans and our supporter’s. Never people who are against Gay Marriage and Polygamy. Your silence is like you condone their idiotic posts.
That's not true, Frankie has expressed support of SSM, and criticized some who have oppossed it.
4)You used to include incent in your obsessive rants, but, have dropped it from your posts. I believe it’s because it’s too extreme for you to include in your narcissistic attempt to remain respectable to the hater crowd.
Is incest, at least same sex, that far removed from same sex first cousins?
Those are the key reasons why I’m certain that you are a very lonely, impotent, bigoted, hateful and deceitful person. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you live a very solitary and emotionally unfulfilling life.
Frankie seems like he'd be fun at a party, doesn't appear bigotted. I don't think you have a fair assessment of him.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181685
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

8

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/21/polygam...

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage

Posted By Bruce Hausknecht On August 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm In Blogs,Judicial Issues,Marriage | Comments Disabled

If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?

That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims.(My earlier coverage is here [1].) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas [2], that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.

[3]A federal judge has refused to dismiss [4] a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert [5]) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.

The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster. We’re waiting to hear if the high court will accept any of the following: the Hollingsworth v. Perry case (the California Marriage Amendment, a/k/a Prop 8), the federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits, and the Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz.

Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.

Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.

And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
Crusher

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181686
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Never been a crazier time for the GOP
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181687
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.
At any rate, the man who beats polygamy to death is hardly capable of recognizing a valid argument.
You beat Same sex marriage to death, thought I'd shake up the discussion a little! Mix it up! It was so boring.

Why does that make you angry? Polygamy deserves the same respect as same sex marriage, no?

Bottom line. I support marriage equality, you do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181688
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Looks like Jizzybirdy is not around. The judge-its aren't being rigged!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181689
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an argument, it was a slam.
Actually it was rather crude ad hominem.

You mad fruitloops?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181690
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.com/201 2/08/21/polygamy-waiting-in-th e-wings-while-supreme-court-ad dresses-the-definition-of-marr iage/
Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage
Posted By Bruce Hausknecht On August 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm In Blogs,Judicial Issues,Marriage | Comments Disabled
If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?
That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims.(My earlier coverage is here [1].) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas [2], that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.
[3]A federal judge has refused to dismiss [4] a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert [5]) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster. We’re waiting to hear if the high court will accept any of the following: the Hollingsworth v. Perry case (the California Marriage Amendment, a/k/a Prop 8), the federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits, and the Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz.
Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.
And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
The way I see it is that with the advent of same sex marriage, marriage has been redefined. There is no turning back.

Society is "evolving". Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen. But I think it's natural.

I don't mind, I like love and all that family stuff. Everyone deserves a shot at a happy family. Marriage is good for society. When I see a happy family, I like it! Whether they be same sex opposite sex, poly, or yes, even incest marriage families.

It's just logical that if marriage is redefined, we should make an equal redefinition that includes everyone. Most of these jackasses disagree. They are hypocrites.

They assume since I don't attack posters against ssm, that I don't support ssm. But the fact is I don't like hypocrites and posters like you are not as hypocritical as they are, not by a long shot.

Good references to polygamy! It's just like everyone else, if you get to know a loving poly family, It's hard to be against whatever makes them happy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181693
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You never presented an argument for marriage, and I don't have a child...
-That a blonde Ho could comprehend.

-Not anymore...

Sad.
Joshua K

Chesterfield, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181694
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

expected
Sidney

Silver Spring, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181695
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

dummys
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181696
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying legalizing same sex marriage will make it much easier to legalize polygamy.
And it will, it's logical, grasshopper. Glad it makes you so silly mad. It makes me happy. I like same sex marriage being allowed I also like poly marriage being allowed.
Marriage is good for society ALL marriages. Not just Big D approved marriages. You have no say in anyone's equal rights. You don't matter. Just grin and bear it. Won't hurt you at all.
I know you are saying that, you are free to have all the opinions you want to have, but there is not a single fact backing you up

go get the fact, get one state to recognize Poly, and it cannot be a state that does not recognize Same sex Marriage or that will disprove your argument

you are free to have all the opinions you want, and we are free to laugh at you about it

But you can’t claim that A ( SSM ) leads to B ( poly ) much less C ( your sister ) or D ( your goat ) until you have a single fact of a same sex marriage state recognizing Poly, and even then you would have to show how one led to the other

and remember if Utah or any state that does not recognize SSM recognizes poly you argument just got flushed down the toilet

The Brown case is working against you, because that is happening in a state that does not recognize SSM, so you cannot say one led to the other.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181697
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
......
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean.
And in the end, it will have no meaning at all.
In your opinion, not in reality.

There is no requirement to make any and all changes to every law because one change is logical and sensible.

A civil right cannot be denied to one group ONLY because you are afraid that another group might someday push their cause.

Sorry, that's not rational, and it's not constitutional.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181699
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Looks like Jizzybirdy is not around. The judge-its aren't being rigged!
There is a lot of room in your head
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181700
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...you are free to have all the opinions you want, and we are free to laugh at you about it...
Gee thanks Fruitcake! Same to you.
Randy-Rock-Hudso n

Candler, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181701
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.
Silly thing, we have ... You just wish to dismiss them... LOL
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181702
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a lot of room in your head
Get to work rigging the judge-its Jackass! You're slacking off.

Speed it up, no Viagra or Night Train for you today! Hup! Hup!

Remember now, good judge-its if your gay, no matter what, and bad judge-its for straight no matter what they say!

Except of course for your own posts which you rate good even though you're straight!

YUK!YUK!YUK! JizzyBrid. What a tool!
Dorn

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181703
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't! The only thing that will eliminate prostitution is extinction of humans.
If polygamy ever becomes legal and women could have as many husbands as she wants, prostitutes could marry their Johns. It might not eliminate prostitution, but it could diminish it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181704
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

"...hate against Frankie...bla bla bla angry rant..bla bla bla...
But you can’t claim that A ( SSM ) leads to B ( poly ) much less C ( your sister ) or D ( your goat ) until you have a single fact of a same sex marriage state recognizing Poly..."
There is a federal law against poly fruitcake, No state can recognize poly.

Get educated, it's the best defence against hate and bigotry.

P.S. Goats cannot enter into contracts. You use all the bigotry people use against SSM, but you use it against polygamy and poorly. Study up, there are much better ignorant insults against poly then the goat one, study the great homophobes work for some better ones.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 GAYS! new2this 10 hr Chris 7
The Waterfalls (May '09) 14 hr Chris 18
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 19 hr Donny B 7,922
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Wed umyeah 474
Abandoned Insane Asylum In Hemet.... (Jun '09) Tue michelle 58
gays Tue Hemetthebeast 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••