Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,317

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
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.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193612 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oy vey.
No one wants to blame anyone for polygamy. We are simply asking why you want it to be illegal when you don't want same sex marriage to be illegal?
This question has been asked and answered ad nauseam. Come up with some new material.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193613 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Very strong, and some of us rather naughty people ( me ) actually enjoy how much it disturbs some.

Ignorance in this day and age is a choice, and I enjoy making fun of folks that make that choice.
ChinaHackers

Covina, CA

#193614 May 28, 2013
Once again those communist crooks in China are at it again, cut off all communications with them via the internet.

Hackers are Chinese.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193615 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
This question has been asked and answered ad nauseam. Come up with some new material.
You are asking for an original thought, he does not possess one.

His playbook says to bring this up next, blow by blow in the slippery slope argument coloring book.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193616 May 28, 2013
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pro... (2000)
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 Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193617 May 28, 2013
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56063485-2...

Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
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...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193622 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...
A slimy slide Queen, but your robe is hooked and you are exposed again.

We are talking about marriage in America. The 'door' is not open.

Nor does it address the clear implications of dumbing down marriage for ss couples.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193623 May 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Very strong, and some of us rather naughty people ( me ) actually enjoy how much it disturbs some.
Ignorance in this day and age is a choice, and I enjoy making fun of folks that make that choice.
That's what they expected in France.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193624 May 28, 2013
The Minnesota law highlights further implications of marriage redefinition in the law. For example, the law states that terms such as “husband,”“wife,”“mother,” and “father” that denote spousal and familial relationships in Minnesota law are to apply equally to persons in an opposite-sex or same-sex relationship.

The law also states that “parentage presumptions based on civil marriage” will also apply, thus allowing for children to have two mothers or two fathers.

http://www.catholicismusa.com/minnesota -
legislature-approves-gay-marri age-eliminates-
legal-status-of-mother-as-biol ogical-term/
Moving on In

Covina, CA

#193625 May 28, 2013
It's about time to invade Mexico and put some laws in to effect and get rid of the DRUG country all together.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193627 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The Minnesota law highlights further implications of marriage redefinition in the law. For example, the law states that terms such as “husband,”“wife,”“mother,” and “father” that denote spousal and familial relationships in Minnesota law are to apply equally to persons in an opposite-sex or same-sex relationship.
The law also states that “parentage presumptions based on civil marriage” will also apply, thus allowing for children to have two mothers or two fathers.
http://www.catholicismusa.com/minnesota -
legislature-approves-gay-marri age-eliminates-
legal-status-of-mother-as-biol ogical-term/
So, are you saying that kids will no longer have a mother and a father? Are you claiming that heterosexuals will no longer marry and have families? Are you trying to get us to believe that all children have always had a married mother and father?

We already know that you, personally, believe that a child who is raised by same-sex parents are at a horrible disadvantage; even though judges have been allowing gays to adopt children since 1993.

"A 1995 National Health and Social Life Survey by E.O. Lauman found that up to nine million children in America have gay or lesbian parents."

You'd think that out of 9,000,000 children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent, there might be a SIGNIFICANT finding, which would make them easily identifiable as having been raised by a gay or lesbian person.

There are SIGNIFICANT variations in childhood outcomes when it comes to race or ethnicity, financial status, type of school attended and other socio-economic factors, but so far only one study suggests that there may be slight variations between those kids who were raised by heterosexual AND intact households, and those kids who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent. And even THAT study has so many holes in it, you could drive a big, pink bus through it.

Keep up the lying, little man. Maybe somebody will believe you one day.

Until then, sit down, shut up, and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193628 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you saying that kids will no longer have a mother and a father? Are you claiming that heterosexuals will no longer marry and have families? Are you trying to get us to believe that all children have always had a married mother and father?
We already know that you, personally, believe that a child who is raised by same-sex parents are at a horrible disadvantage; even though judges have been allowing gays to adopt children since 1993.
"A 1995 National Health and Social Life Survey by E.O. Lauman found that up to nine million children in America have gay or lesbian parents."
You'd think that out of 9,000,000 children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent, there might be a SIGNIFICANT finding, which would make them easily identifiable as having been raised by a gay or lesbian person.
There are SIGNIFICANT variations in childhood outcomes when it comes to race or ethnicity, financial status, type of school attended and other socio-economic factors, but so far only one study suggests that there may be slight variations between those kids who were raised by heterosexual AND intact households, and those kids who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent. And even THAT study has so many holes in it, you could drive a big, pink bus through it.
Keep up the lying, little man. Maybe somebody will believe you one day.
Until then, sit down, shut up, and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
Queen of DeNial,

No, I'm never saying what you try to divert to.

In fact, in this case, I didn't say anything. I simply posted an article that exposes the idiotic consequences of living in DeNial.

According to you, duplicate gendered couples equate to mom and dad.

According to you, step, foster and adoptive parents fall far behind birth parents according to numerous studies. However, a duplicate gendered step, foster or adoptive parent is equal (or better according to several lesbian 'studies').

The lies are all yours pretender.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193629 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A slimy slide Queen, but your robe is hooked and you are exposed again.
We are talking about marriage in America. The 'door' is not open.
Nor does it address the clear implications of dumbing down marriage for ss couples.
Exactly where is your non-functional vagina, is it just behind your balls and poo poo comes out of it once a day?

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
Im curious about an area of Hemet (Nov '08) 11 hr Jenny 81
dangerous sex offender 27348 Meridian st Hemet 15 hr TOOmanyPERVS 2
Review: Inland Valley Janitorial And Maintenance (Jan '14) 18 hr Debbie Ely 2
Debate: Drinking Age - Hemet, CA (Dec '11) Sun Carol Wiedrick 10
MenifeeREGION: Neighborhoods team up against ma... Jan 24 Robert griffin 1
Cornman (Nov '11) Jan 22 Chris 24
Police dog fatally shot while pursuing armed felon Jan 22 Chris 2

Hemet News Video

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:59 am PST