Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,820

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.

Read more
Buno

Westminster, CA

#193575 May 28, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I see how it is. You use the word "fear" to describe our feelings, and then, denounce the same word, when used in conjunction with your own stance. Got it. I believe that I've already pointed out the double standard, but you do not recognize it, because you think that it's YOUR game, and we are somehow different. We've ALWAYS had the rights that you seek, but, since time began, your way of doing things has encountered resistance. Except, of course, for a few old timey cultures that no longer, technically, exist. Up until now, your desires have been loosely tolerated, but not approved of. NOW, you have infiltrated, usurped and bribed all of the properly placed people to garner the decision. And you get uptight with us traditionalists that want to preserve some of the ways that have lasted us this long, and resulted in our presence here, today. We, that it to say, I and others that think the same way that I do, do nor believe in the "mix-n-match" policy for marriage that you do. And you trivialize our feelings, while demanding that we respect your, as if they are somehow morally superior to ours. No, sir, I am not "fu**ing" (have to edit, you have privileges that I do not) with you, I am making my case the same way that you are. AND, I am not coming unglued at some words that have been used on the internet, as you did, although, you make it sound so nice and respectable, and logical. Passionate? You have shown yourself, repeatedly, to be sensitive, angry and the way that you justify "getting in peoples faces" makes me think that you might have a history of violence. Our rights have been accorded for our relationships that are in accordance with nature, not because we wanted to shack up with "Bucky" or "Victor". Marriage is a serious business, sir, not something to use for personal gain. Your relationships provide for no offspring, and are, therefore, sterile by nature. For this, you wish to receive the same benefits as a struggling couple, and are willing to disparage those same couples in order to make them seem frivolous. "Heterosexual marriage are shot all to hell", or some such thing that you said, using statistics of failed marriages to validate your claims.
To be continued...
Gee you are really into this shit hugh. You are boring
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#193576 May 28, 2013
Good morning everyone

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193579 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Spot on old chap. Jolly good point.
moan and groan

Tempe, AZ

#193580 May 28, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them, but when they're done you'll be enlightened.
That was really really bad....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193582 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The JUSTICE brought it up. Proponents of same-sex marriage have NEVER argued in favor of polygamy in any court cases involving same-sex marriage.
These are two, very distinct issues.
You know the idea would be harmful to your cause, so you desperately try to distance yourself.

But you also know that the dumbing down of marriage legally opens the door for a host of issues including polygamy.

All of this exposes denial, not disinterest.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193583 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard of marriage being comprised of TWO PEOPLE is supported by Same-sex marriage advocates.
At no point in any court argument made by proponents of same-sex marriage have we asked for marriage to include more than two people. We've not asked that marriage be allowed between adults and minors, humans and animals, humans and inanimate objects, etc.
One man, one woman; one man, one man; one woman, one woman... That's what we are supporting.
It is deceitful for you to imply that same-sex marriage proponents are in favor polygamy.
The ONLY reason marriage is restricted to two people is because of children. Dumbing down marriage by eliminating procreation removes that restriction.

You deny being aware of that. Simply a lie.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193584 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
SS couples have to equate before they can claim equal rights. They clearly don't.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193585 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
SS couples have to equate before they can claim equal rights. They clearly don't.
Nor do you, should we stop recognizing your marriage legally?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193586 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
No... The issue here is "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage".

That is the heading on this TOPIX forum.

There is nothing in the title of this forum that has to do with polygamy.

You have continued to try to make it an issue, yet no one is biting.

We do try to redirect you to the issue at hand, but like a blind man, you keep wandering away.

No matter how hard we try to keep you on topic, you keep going back to polygamy.

To that end, I have set you up a "polygamy forum" called "Frankie wants to discuss Polygamy". You can find it here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193587 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the idea would be harmful to your cause, so you desperately try to distance yourself.
But you also know that the dumbing down of marriage legally opens the door for a host of issues including polygamy.
All of this exposes denial, not disinterest.
The door to polygamy was opened when heterosexual couples began to marry one another. Many of you are happy to report that polygamy has been seen more commonly than same-sex marriage throughout history. So, YOU opened that door; not us.

To discuss polygamy further, please visit the new TOPIX forum created for this issue, "Frankie wants to discuss polygamy", found here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193590 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No... The issue here is "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage".
That is the heading on this TOPIX forum.
There is nothing in the title of this forum that has to do with polygamy.
You have continued to try to make it an issue, yet no one is biting.
We do try to redirect you to the issue at hand, but like a blind man, you keep wandering away.
No matter how hard we try to keep you on topic, you keep going back to polygamy.
To that end, I have set you up a "polygamy forum" called "Frankie wants to discuss Polygamy". You can find it here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA


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?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193593 May 28, 2013
Note the last line, the quote, it speaks volumes.

http://constitutionschool.com/2012/09/27/is-t...

As an increasing number of American citizens grow more comfortable with the notion of gay marriage (46% of Americans), more and more individuals are seeking to legally challenge the very framework of this age old institution.

In addition to the calls by many to allow people of the same sex an opportunity to be legally wed, there are growing numbers of many old-style Mormons seeking legal immunity to engage in polygamy; an illegal practice of having multiple spouses.

This past summer, Jeff Buhman, the chief prosecutor for Utah County, Utah, made a decision that went largely unreported by many in the mainstream media – a decision to no longer prosecute anyone in the county who may be guilty of this practice; Buhman also went a step further, by placing legal roadblocks for any future county attorney who may attempt to prosecute said individuals:

“[Buhman’s decision is] intended to prevent future prosecution of polygamists in Utah County for just the practice of polygamy,”

The statements are part of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the state’s bigamy law filed by Kody Brown and his four wives: Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn.

An attorney for the Brown family had the following to say:

“While I am pleased that the prosecutors are now promising to leave this family alone, the decision will not end our challenge to the state law,” said Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jonathan Turley in a blog entry posted Thursday, expressing his “great relief for the Brown family that this long-standing threat has been finally lifted.”

According to the Brown’s attorney, the state’s law banning multiple spouses violates their constitutional right to privacy and religious freedom.

The new legal trend has the potential to decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

“If homosexuals are free to be married, then why can’t we? We have much more history on our side than they do.” stated one Mormon-fundamentalist claiming to being married to three different women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193594 May 28, 2013
“If homosexuals are free to be married, then why can’t we? We have much more history on our side than they do.” stated one Mormon-fundamentalist claiming to being married to three different women.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193599 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The door to polygamy was opened when heterosexual couples began to marry one another. Many of you are happy to report that polygamy has been seen more commonly than same-sex marriage throughout history. So, YOU opened that door; not us.
To discuss polygamy further, please visit the new TOPIX forum created for this issue, "Frankie wants to discuss polygamy", found here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...
I am sure you know this, but none of them are actually interested in the subject and have stated so, only in how they can use the subject to oppose same sex marriage.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193601 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Note the last line, the quote, it speaks volumes.
http://constitutionschool.com/2012/09/27/is-t...
As an increasing number of American citizens grow more comfortable with the notion of gay marriage (46% of Americans), more and more individuals are seeking to legally challenge the very framework of this age old institution.
In addition to the calls by many to allow people of the same sex an opportunity to be legally wed, there are growing numbers of many old-style Mormons seeking legal immunity to engage in polygamy; an illegal practice of having multiple spouses.
This past summer, Jeff Buhman, the chief prosecutor for Utah County, Utah, made a decision that went largely unreported by many in the mainstream media – a decision to no longer prosecute anyone in the county who may be guilty of this practice; Buhman also went a step further, by placing legal roadblocks for any future county attorney who may attempt to prosecute said individuals:
“[Buhman’s decision is] intended to prevent future prosecution of polygamists in Utah County for just the practice of polygamy,”
The statements are part of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the state’s bigamy law filed by Kody Brown and his four wives: Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn.
An attorney for the Brown family had the following to say:
“While I am pleased that the prosecutors are now promising to leave this family alone, the decision will not end our challenge to the state law,” said Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jonathan Turley in a blog entry posted Thursday, expressing his “great relief for the Brown family that this long-standing threat has been finally lifted.”
According to the Brown’s attorney, the state’s law banning multiple spouses violates their constitutional right to privacy and religious freedom.
The new legal trend has the potential to decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
“If homosexuals are free to be married, then why can’t we? We have much more history on our side than they do.” stated one Mormon-fundamentalist claiming to being married to three different women.
I still don't see how you can make the leap from 2 same-sex people being allowed to marry to the legalization of polygamy.

You're trying to say that by changing any aspect to marriage means that all aspects to marriage must also be allowed to change.

To say that allowing same-gender couples to marry will lead to polygamy is like saying, "If we change the age at which people can begin to vote, then we'll have to allow non-residents to vote."

Just because one aspect of marriage (or voting) changes, does not mean that the doors fly open to every other possible change.

As I've said here repeatedly, if others want to have their shot at changing the laws of marriage to include them, then they have access to the same processes that are required to have that done.

If polygamists decide to pursue having their marriages recognized by the government, they're going to have a hell of a time using any arguments that have been presented by proponents of same-sex marriage. NO case that has been argued before a judge with regards to same-sex marriage have included an argument to increase the number of spouses a person can have.

If you were an attorney arguing on behalf of polygamy, which parts of the same-sex marriage trials would you draw from to support your case?

Finally, if you want to be historically accurate, it was during the Love v. Virginia trial--the one legalizing interracial marriage--that the Attorney General for Virginia warned that "polygamy" would result, should interracial marriage be legalized.

If you want to blame anyone for the future of polygamy, blame those who argued in favor of interracial marriage.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193602 May 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure you know this, but none of them are actually interested in the subject and have stated so, only in how they can use the subject to oppose same sex marriage.
I realize this... It's a parlor game at this point.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193607 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize this... It's a parlor game at this point.
At this point.. a parlor game is all they have.

Did you see the news in Nevada, another state on the road to having its ban reversed.

Again I DO NOT expect a broad ruling, I expect them to "dismissed as improvidently granted" in both cases. Or at least in the Prop 8 case, DOMA they actually may remove one section, but I don’t expect they will move on the other.

I am not expecting a ground breaking ruling here, it will be a minor ruling, that will toss it back to the states. California's case means Prop 8 will be overturned as our courts have already ruled that way, or at the very worst, back on the ballot to be overturned in the next election easily.

I would rather a major ruling, but I don’t expect that at this point.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193609 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't see how you can make the leap from 2 same-sex people being allowed to marry to the legalization of polygamy.
Because that is the order listed in the play book argument written in the anti-same sex marriage coloring book handed out after services at the Westborough Baptist Church

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193610 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not it's not. It's a discussion of marriage equality.
If we were discussing the primary colors would you exclude one of them, say red from being allowed to be mentioned?
Why do you attempt to do that with one form of marriage when discussing marriage?
Because the primary colors are already defined as "primary colors".

In the fight for marriage equality, only heterosexual couples can be defined as "married". Same-sex couples cannot.

Apples and oranges...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193611 May 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point.. a parlor game is all they have.
Did you see the news in Nevada, another state on the road to having its ban reversed.
Again I DO NOT expect a broad ruling, I expect them to "dismissed as improvidently granted" in both cases. Or at least in the Prop 8 case, DOMA they actually may remove one section, but I don’t expect they will move on the other.
I am not expecting a ground breaking ruling here, it will be a minor ruling, that will toss it back to the states. California's case means Prop 8 will be overturned as our courts have already ruled that way, or at the very worst, back on the ballot to be overturned in the next election easily.
I would rather a major ruling, but I don’t expect that at this point.
I don't expect a major ruling either. However, the momentum favoring the legalization of same-sex marriage is strong.

At this point it's a waiting game. Everyone here knows that.

It pleases some of us, while disturbing others.

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
Brittany CROUCH Mon tellinitlikeitis 2
Review: Cindy's Pawn Mar 29 phoenix 4
kevin duffy (Aug '09) Mar 27 tellinitlikeitis 8
Lou Pittam's Store (Apr '10) Mar 26 Chris 3
Black teens loitering outside E. Hemet stores (Jul '11) Mar 23 ignorancekillsus 40
bradley rd. Mar 23 DMJBF 3
News Gurzi Pleads Guilty, Sentenced to 12 Years in P... (Dec '07) Mar 22 tracy 8
Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]