Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201811 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196458 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Frankie, I just don't see why we should change existing laws for the sake of one religion. If we do that then the flood doors will open. 1797 different religions, sects and tree worshipers wanting different terms. Nope let that one be.
Its all in the Constitution, if you care to read.
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.

What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?

Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.

"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196459 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
I don't want to marry anyone. Why do you keep saying stupid stuff like that? You are truly a moron. A buffoon!

I'll tell you why you do it. Because you're mad and you have no argument.

Hope that helps! Always ask for help. Remember! You are an idiot.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196460 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects of Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise are not limited to traditional notions of
worship, but extend to other behaviors that may be motivated by religious beliefs.8 Religious law
often times is not limited to traditional worship or religious activities. Rather it may extend to
day-to-day practices and behaviors. That is, Christianity may require attendance of religious
services on Sunday but it also instructs its followers to perform charitable acts toward other
individuals. Under Christian religious law, an individual’s exercise of Christian beliefs may
include both going to church and assisting one’s neighbors. Similarly, in compliance with sharia,
Muslims should not only observe daily prayers, but also conduct financial dealings consistent
with their religious law.9 This understanding of the broad scope of many religious laws is
significant when considering how these laws may intersect with the secular legal system.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196461 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
Oh that's what moron said. Marry my boy frind sic ha ha so funny.

That doesn't prove your argument. What was your argument again?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196462 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.
What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?
Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.
"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
"Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/ ... "

You did post this didn't you ?

" engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith"

We don't make laws to suit ANY RELIGION.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196463 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.
What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?
Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.
"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196464 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects of Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise are not limited to traditional notions of
worship, but extend to other behaviors that may be motivated by religious beliefs.8 Religious law
often times is not limited to traditional worship or religious activities. Rather it may extend to
day-to-day practices and behaviors. That is, Christianity may require attendance of religious
services on Sunday but it also instructs its followers to perform charitable acts toward other
individuals. Under Christian religious law, an individual’s exercise of Christian beliefs may
include both going to church and assisting one’s neighbors. Similarly, in compliance with sharia,
Muslims should not only observe daily prayers, but also conduct financial dealings consistent
with their religious law.9 This understanding of the broad scope of many religious laws is
significant when considering how these laws may intersect with the secular legal system.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Learn how to cut and paste and post links for chrissakes. Make it easy for your reader also you won't appear as such a moron.

Aside from the fact that some religions are polygamous, what other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality? We understand the "I don't like their religion" one. What other ones do you have?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196465 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Why don't you just cut and paste the whole wikipedia Jiz, then get back to us when you're done.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196466 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/ ... "
You did post this didn't you ?
" engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith"
We don't make laws to suit ANY RELIGION.
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196467 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Sure you hate religious Americans, we got it. Forget religion. Why are you a hypocrite?

What harm would a marriage of three atheist women cause you and why do you want it to stay illegal?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196468 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just cut and paste the whole wikipedia Jiz, then get back to us when you're done.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mis c/R41824.pdf

Thats not wikipeda, dang son cant you read?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196469 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you hate religious Americans, we got it. Forget religion. Why are you a hypocrite?
What harm would a marriage of three atheist women cause you and why do you want it to stay illegal?
None, now go find three of them. Frank you keep bringing up Mormons. Your buddy posted about other religions. If thats the reason, religion, no
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196470 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
So you admit that you lied, you do want the change for religious reasons. YOU posted it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196471 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Thats not wikipeda, dang son cant you read?
It's not click-able because you are a moron and you don't know how to post a click-able link. I could cut and paste it in but why bother, it's just more religious claptrap cut and paste.

ASIDE FROM RELIGION and your hate of it's adherents, what reasons do you have to oppose marriage equality?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196472 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the "I don't like their religion" one, What other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality?
"The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...

Golly Frankie, in India, cows are sacred, should we pass laws banning the slaughter of them. Hew how about letting them roam the streets in LA, NewYork, Chicago. Maybe 4 or 5 living next door to you?

http://www.google.com/imgres...

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#196473 Jun 17, 2013
The poster of the week goes to.....You're not two bright are you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196474 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>So you admit that you lied, you do want the change for religious reasons. YOU posted it.
No. I did not lie you liar, I intentionally brought up religion to spin your wheels. Get you all pumped up good. Make you dance for Frankie!

Let's forget religion now that we got that out of our systems. Why are you a hypocrite and a liar?

Did you learn the liar straw man from Big D? That's his schtick. He and you have no argument so he and you lie and call me a liar. Weak. Desperate. Dishonest and sleazy.

Why do you oppose marriage equality? Calling me a liar is not an answer. Even if I was a liar it would be irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196475 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
"The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
Golly Frankie, in India, cows are sacred, should we pass laws banning the slaughter of them. Hew how about letting them roam the streets in LA, NewYork, Chicago. Maybe 4 or 5 living next door to you?
http://www.google.com/imgres...
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Your objections to marriage equality seem to be religious. Aside from religion, why do you oppose marriage equality?

Why do you oppose marriage equality for three adult atheists for example?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196476 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>None, now go find three of them. Frank you keep bringing up Mormons. Your buddy posted about other religions. If thats the reason, religion, no
So you would deny marriage based on religion. Nice! What a hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196477 Jun 17, 2013
Over 500,000 others (besides religious, Jizzy) identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

Why do you wish to deny them marriage equality JBird?

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
Review: Kim, Jae H MD - Jae H Kim MD (Oct '09) Fri What are we shygi... 84
hemet is heaven (Mar '10) Thu recruit gay ray 21
U.S. Post Office SUCKS (Apr '11) Thu tell your boy 97
Come on already! May 26 Lady Morgana 6
Kings Inn Sun City (Way Back (Mar '14) May 25 marie 2
How Many Vacant Buildings In Hemet? (Aug '10) May 24 ed4christ 28
Zipline Express CarWash Memorial Day Savings! May 24 Zipline Express C... 1
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]