Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,197

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
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193371 May 26, 2013
Another crooked COP. oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193372 May 26, 2013
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56282277-2...

Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.

Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.

Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.

In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage "odious," and an "offence against society." In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature's ability to uphold "morals-based legislation," the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.

Since then, TV shows such as TLC's "Sister Wives," HBO's "Big Love" and Showtime's "Polyamory" have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation's collective living room and consciousness.
Bud Longneck

Cambridge, IL

#193373 May 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you are a hypocrite too.
Poly MARRIAGE deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex MARRIAGE. You know dummy, marriage EQUALITY. Or maybe you don't know, being you are so angry and stupid and all.
Why do you wish to have more than one wife? Do you have one now? I have noticed that you call people stupid all the time. Why do you do that? Is it because they don't agree with you? If thats the reason, may be its your ideas. Think about it for a while.
Bud Longneck

Cambridge, IL

#193374 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that really different from what I wrote:
"That goal is the elimination of monogamous conjugal, as in husband and wife, sole legal definition and/or standard { of marriage} in this country."
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhkay.
<quoted text>
No one is seriously proposing marriage involving minors, or animals. So let's dispense with that.
<quoted text>
Again, the elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband AND wife. The essence of what I stated the goal of the movement is.
<quoted text>
No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife.
Once that is done, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who, as long as its between consenting adults?
Why don't you like gay people? Has something happened to you? Are you a Catholic? Was it a Preist. I hope you know that a Pedophile is not gay. Ask Jesus for help.
Mrs Longnech

Schenectady, NY

#193375 May 26, 2013
Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you like gay people? Has something happened to you? Are you a Catholic? Was it a Preist. I hope you know that a Pedophile is not gay. Ask Jesus for help.
You stop that right now young man! That's not nice. Just because he supports a man and a woman only, for marriage, doesn't mean he hates anybody.And stop misspelling the family name for some twisted game you seem to be engaged in.
Orem

Durham, NC

#193376 May 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made no attempts at drawing people to Jesus. You are very stupid.
Whoop Whoop
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193377 May 26, 2013
Another crooked COP. oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193378 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that really different from what I wrote:
"That goal is the elimination of monogamous conjugal, as in husband and wife, sole legal definition and/or standard { of marriage} in this country."
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhkay.
<quoted text>
No one is seriously proposing marriage involving minors, or animals. So let's dispense with that.
<quoted text>
Again, the elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband AND wife. The essence of what I stated the goal of the movement is.
<quoted text>
No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife.
Once that is done, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who, as long as its between consenting adults?
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.

You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."

You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you? And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.

We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners. So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".

For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.

Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.

You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.

It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness. You want it to be an exclusive club.

You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.

Shallow... Very shallow...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193380 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mob ile3/56282277-219/marriage-plu ral-polygamy-court.html.csp
Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.
Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.
Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.
In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage "odious," and an "offence against society." In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature's ability to uphold "morals-based legislation," the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.
Since then, TV shows such as TLC's "Sister Wives," HBO's "Big Love" and Showtime's "Polyamory" have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation's collective living room and consciousness.
OK, so you dislike polygamy. You don't want groups of people marrying one another.

But stop blaming the LGBT community for what "might" happen.

Did we reject civil rights because of what "might" happen? No, we passed civil rights measures because it was the right thing to do. Has it been easy? No! Have there been problems with civil rights? Yes! But you DO NOT deny people human rights simply because you are afraid of what MIGHT happen or that there MIGHT be difficulties in the transition.
Blasters

Covina, CA

#193391 May 26, 2013
Time to blast them all, Bob Dole Blasts Fellow Republicans.

Is it true that they have lost their way?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193392 May 26, 2013
Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you wish to have more than one wife? Do you have one now? I have noticed that you call people stupid all the time. Why do you do that? Is it because they don't agree with you? If thats the reason, may be its your ideas. Think about it for a while.
No, that's not it. It's because you really are stupid. Think about it for a while.

Alright beer bottle! Hope that helped. Remember, there are no stupid posts only stupid posters such as yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193394 May 26, 2013
Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you like gay people? Has something happened to you? Are you a Catholic? Was it a Preist. I hope you know that a Pedophile is not gay. Ask Jesus for help.
Yes. We know that male pedophiles who molest boys are not gay. We've read the rainbow handbook.

So for example if Jerry Sandusky was raping a boy in the shower ("horsing around") Jerry is not gay, but if the boy turned 18 before Jerry came, Then Jerry would turn gay at that moment.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193395 May 26, 2013
Orem wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop Whoop
WOOO~HOOOOO!! Whoop! Whoop!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193396 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you? And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners. So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness. You want it to be an exclusive club.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
There you go again. Why do you fear polygamy or think anyone else does?
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#193398 May 26, 2013
All of a sudden there's been a spike in smilie mashing, which can only mean that Rosie has ended her shift at the Offal House.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193399 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fear". That's that pesky little, double-sided word that you use, to marginalize our feelings against SSM, but not to be used against your "reasonably expressed" opinion that you cannot "endorse" polygamy. Right? We fear, but you do not. Did I get that right?
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T

VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193400 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
VV is arguing against marriage equality for poly using the same arguments he ridicules when used against SSM. Classic hypocrite.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

#193401 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you mind, awfully, describing how the re-definition of marriage is "right for America"? I'm going to need to hear some actual reasons for this grievous lie, and, perhaps, you can provide some actual benefits that ALL of us are going to receive?
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

#193402 May 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T
VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
You are another stupid fool. I bet your family is quite embarassed by you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193403 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you?
Yesssssss......mono is not poly.
And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
But you are trying to eliminate the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a union of Husband and wile.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners.
So then marry someone of the opposite sex and then you'll get the "same rights and protections". In reality what you're asking the state to do is declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
Thus achieving the goal that you seek.
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
We fear the continued devaluation of marriage through its redefinition, and the possible long term consequences of that.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
No, polygamy won't rush in, it'll slip in on the wake of SSM. Why that would bother you, baffles me?
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness.
No, more of a concern for society as a whole, and for the next generation.
You want it to be an exclusive club.
As do you, you want to exclude polygamists from it.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
Its not allowing them to marry, but changing the definition do they can marry. But, I'll ask anyway. What specific improvements do you speak of? Can they not be effected by a Civil Union structure?

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
OMG!! White trailer trash, what cities are they... (Dec '12) 2 hr Shannon25 33
Mountain view apartments on whittier WTF (Jun '11) 6 hr Chris 52
Vote yes on Measure AA to help our MSJC student... 13 hr Melissa C 2
HemetHEMET: Food market's ex-owner convicted of... 13 hr Melissa C 12
young gay guys in hemet Wed blackman157 1
U.S. Post Office SUCKS (Apr '11) Oct 28 onlymy3 88
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Oct 28 kunta 452

Flash Flood Watch for Riverside County was issued at October 30 at 9:45PM PDT

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match

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 ]