Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,376

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
enlightment

Portsmouth, VA

#180298 Feb 19, 2013
this is great! finally comes understanding and compassion. it would be just as unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage as it would to take ahetersosexual couple and force them to seperate or to deny them their God given right of freedom to love who they want. For example,HUD housing,certain states deny two of the same sex to cohabit even if they were legally married in another state ,all because of the unconstitutional bans on this basic human right.So then,the two who are in love,are evicted and left to struggle to find another home!its injustice! Finally,a judge has b
rought justice to california!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180299 Feb 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>He is unteachable and incorrigible.
Janey Doody, it's the other way around.

"Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as several states high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.)

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.

So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society...”

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
enlightment

Portsmouth, VA

#180300 Feb 19, 2013
he has brought it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180301 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No they are not now BUT THEY WERE. Damn you are thick as a brick.
But you keep trying to put them up front

this tactic is failing, states are accepting same sex marriage regardless of your desperate attempts
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180302 Feb 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>He is unteachable and incorrigible.
If you are trying to teach me that polyamorists don't deserve equal protection then yes, I am unteachable.

Because you are wrong. And you won't say why they don't deserve it, you just say "because it's against the law!"
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180303 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are trying to teach me that polyamorists don't deserve equal protection then yes, I am unteachable.
Because you are wrong. And you won't say why they don't deserve it, you just say "because it's against the law!"
No one is trying to teach you, we would have to be paid ( a lot ) for that. We are just laughing at you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180304 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
But you keep trying to put them up front
this tactic is failing, states are accepting same sex marriage regardless of your desperate attempts
You know damn well I support SSM. How could I not without being a hypocrite like you? The old Big D "you're a liar" straw man.

Any desperation here is yours, you are getting dishonest again and you are not even bothering to conceal your bigotry and hypocrisy.

What you say about "the face of polygamy" is ugly hateful rhetoric NO DIFFERENT from what was said about homosexuals a few decades ago. You thinly disguise it by claiming it's not you, it's everybody else.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180305 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is trying to teach you, we would have to be paid ( a lot ) for that. We are just laughing at you
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.

Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180306 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You know damn well I support SSM. How could I not without being a hypocrite like you? The old Big D "you're a liar" straw man.
Any desperation here is yours, you are getting dishonest again and you are not even bothering to conceal your bigotry and hypocrisy.
What you say about "the face of polygamy" is ugly hateful rhetoric NO DIFFERENT from what was said about homosexuals a few decades ago. You thinly disguise it by claiming it's not you, it's everybody else.
No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM

I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position

No one is fooled
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180307 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180308 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are
On the basis of one anonymous phone call (that later appeared to be a hoax), Texas authorities forcibly removed more than 460 children from their parents without evidence of actual abuse in each case. Parents and children were ordered to undergo DNA testing (Who knows how long the state will maintain the DNA database, or to what uses it will be put?), and the children were summarily consigned to the notorious Texas foster-care system.

You approve of this sh!t?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180309 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM
I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position
No one is fooled
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."

Big D

Modesto, CA

#180310 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =i1sf8EpgkSQXX
LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.

Stephen Stills won’t help you

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180311 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I am not interested in a poly marriage.
I am only interested in discussing it in relation to same marriage equality. As I've told you countless times.
If it upsets you so much or you don't understand my points, it's not my problem, Just stop stalking me creep.
Got it you're a troll.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180312 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
Please provide a link to the news story.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180313 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.
Stephen Stills won’t help you
He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.

You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180314 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180315 Feb 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.
A gay-wedding crasher
Editorial
A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
July 31, 2011
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.

The Utah case involves Kody Brown, his legal wife, Meri Brown, and three other "sister wives." It's not actually about marriage, and it doesn't challenge the right of the state to refuse to issue wedding licenses to polygamous families. The Browns are in court because they fear they will be prosecuted.

The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Kennedy emphasized in Lawrence that same-sex marriage wasn't before the court. Similarly, in an interview with the New York Times, Turley suggested that decriminalizing polygamy will not inevitably lead to a movement for polygamous marriage. But language addressed to one issue often surfaces in cases dealing with others. When Massachusetts' highest court decided to strike down the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, it cited the Lawrence opinion.

So is polygamy about to receive the same legal status that same-sex marriage now has in several states? Not in the near term. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage, a prerequisite, some think, for acceptance of polygamous marriage. Meanwhile, the federal court in Utah, in parallel with Lawrence, may rule simply that the Browns and other polygamous families are immune to prosecution but can't have their multiple "spiritual marriages" blessed by the law.

But, like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180316 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.
so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180317 Feb 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.
You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?
Oh no, it is your dishonesty that is so funny, I could care less about polygamy, I honestly think you could care less about polygamy too, other than how you can use it to attack supporters of Same Sex marriage.

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.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
People confirms Bruce Jenner 'transitioning int... Sun guest 27
Architect of Vegas icons Bellagio and Fremont S... Feb 23 calebhart54 1
Los Angeles Surgeon Offers Free Varicose Vein U... (Dec '07) Feb 10 Zach 4
10 Best Pizza Restaurants in Los Angeles Feb 3 William Walker 1
WeHo's D'Amico finds politicking harder than go... Feb 2 ambiguous9 1
Anti-gay group sues elected officials to stop s... Feb 2 DNF 32
Bishop Charles Edward will be exposed in 2012/s... (Feb '12) Jan '15 The Evangelist 5

Brentwood News Video

Los Angeles Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Brentwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:43 am PST