Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

“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

San Dimas, 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?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193630 May 28, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and he'll add that he's 250lbs of mean, angry and big fa**ot, to cement the deal... Throw in a couple of penitentiary relatives for some fear factor...
Note: I was allowed to use that word, unedited, one time, as the Knoxville meanie used it first, but now, I'm not allowed to use it anymore. Now, I am back to having to edit.
Alcohol and nicotine are taking their toll on you rock daddy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193631 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.
Simple. One nationwide definition of marriage, prior to 2004. Monogamous union of husband and wife. Applied to ALL Americans. Everyone could have one spouse of the opposite sex. Now the OS requirement has been dropped in a few states, and the polygamists have their own reality show. Plus they have publicly supported SSM.
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.
Think about it. Basic requirements. One must be of age, able to consent, not currently married, not a close blood relative of the other party, and is willing to accept someone one of the opposite sex as heir respective legal husband or wife. The OS requirement has been dropped, so what else is expendable? Age? No. Consent? No. That leaves number, and blood relation.
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.
You continue to dodge the question. If marriage is no longer defined as the monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter if monogamy is maintained? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
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?
Ask the question: "If monogamous conjugal, husband and wife,marriage which is the foundation of a stable society in this country, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, and individuals are allowed to have the state sanction their consenting personal intimate sexual relationships as marriage, regardless of the number or nature of said relationship, why then, should polygamy be excluded?
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.
Not quite sparky. Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times, for example mid 19th century New York City, long before SSM was even conceived of. Besides, you're basing your claim on one elected official from that time period. Weak, Vee Vee.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193632 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on old chap. Jolly good point.
When are you haters going to give up the poly argument? It’s doing absolutely nothing to stop the progression of Gay Marriage Rights. I’m chuckling as I write this. Truly funny part is that you think monogamous Non-Gay couples are somehow the elite standard. Word to the wise, you’re not special in any way.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193633 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing worse than a fat, 6'5", 250 lb queer. I feel sorry for the underage teen boys you troll for at your local mall.
Your hater is showing, that’s it get all childish when your slapped down, biotch. You’re nothing but a poser and a liar.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#193637 May 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
When are you haters going to give up the poly argument? It’s doing absolutely nothing to stop the progression of Gay Marriage Rights. I’m chuckling as I write this. Truly funny part is that you think monogamous Non-Gay couples are somehow the elite standard. Word to the wise, you’re not special in any way.
In fact, "straight married couples" are THE MOST DIVORCED people in the U.S.! How is that a "Gold Standard" ?!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193638 May 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly where is your non-functional vagina, is it just behind your balls and poo poo comes out of it once a day?
You are kind of bitchy today. Feeling like a Queen?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193640 May 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
When are you haters going to give up the poly argument? It’s doing absolutely nothing to stop the progression of Gay Marriage Rights. I’m chuckling as I write this. Truly funny part is that you think monogamous Non-Gay couples are somehow the elite standard. Word to the wise, you’re not special in any way.
Why are you rainbow flag wavers trying to distance yourselves from your poly brothers and sisters?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193643 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/
I love how you think that's a big deal.

And black people are no longer considered 3/5 of a person, either.

Poor you.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193644 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you rainbow flag wavers trying to distance yourselves from your poly brothers and sisters?
That's all you've got left, huh?

Desperate is not your color.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193648 May 28, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all you've got left, huh?
Desperate is not your color.
You have not been here long enough, desperate actually is his color

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193650 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple. One nationwide definition of marriage, prior to 2004. Monogamous union of husband and wife. Applied to ALL Americans. Everyone could have one spouse of the opposite sex. Now the OS requirement has been dropped in a few states, and the polygamists have their own reality show. Plus they have publicly supported SSM.
<quoted text>
Think about it. Basic requirements. One must be of age, able to consent, not currently married, not a close blood relative of the other party, and is willing to accept someone one of the opposite sex as heir respective legal husband or wife. The OS requirement has been dropped, so what else is expendable? Age? No. Consent? No. That leaves number, and blood relation.
<quoted text>
You continue to dodge the question. If marriage is no longer defined as the monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter if monogamy is maintained? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
<quoted text>
Ask the question: "If monogamous conjugal, husband and wife,marriage which is the foundation of a stable society in this country, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, and individuals are allowed to have the state sanction their consenting personal intimate sexual relationships as marriage, regardless of the number or nature of said relationship, why then, should polygamy be excluded?
<quoted text>
Not quite sparky. Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times, for example mid 19th century New York City, long before SSM was even conceived of. Besides, you're basing your claim on one elected official from that time period. Weak, Vee Vee.
You keep making the HUGE leap from same-sex marriage to polygamy.

You keep asking "Why should polygamy be excluded?" Do you want polygamy to be excluded? Are you in favor of polygamy? If you are in favor of polygamy, then be default, you must also be in favor of same-sex marriage.

Re: interracial marriage... In your post above you say that "Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times..."

Yes it did. And now we have a situation where same-sex marriage exists in various parts of the country.

And the one politician that you refer to happens to be THE Attorney General who LOST the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia. He wasn't just some idiot. He fought against interracial marriage and lost before the Supreme Court.

And he argued, just as you are arguing now, that interracial marriage will decimate "traditional" marriage. He claimed that once the races are allowed to intermarry, then everything is up for grabs--polygamy, marriage to people who were intellectually unable to consent to marriage, etc.

If polygamy hasn't happened in the nearly 50 years that interracial marriage has been legal, then it's not going to happen now.

Your idiotic scare tactics, your illogical belief that one thing inherently leads to another, and your other rhetoric may convince a few people, but in the long run it won't make a difference.

The barrel is rolling in our favor. When will the scales firmly tip in our favor? Who knows? Illinois is on the verge of passing same-sex marriage. There have been several states that either voted or legislated laws that legalized same-sex marriage over the past few years. The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and wants the DOJ to stop enforcing it. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has gone down in flames.

If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage within the decade.

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.

Westwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Stormy Daniels is Going to Receive the Key to W... Jun 14 Trixie 2
News Emmys bear the Colbert stamp: Genial, poignant,... (Sep '17) Jun 11 whitebread de niro 4
News Griffin honored for LGBTQ activism, pays tribut... Jun 8 Gremlin 5
Cute Homeless girl at westwood and santa monica... May '18 Bob23 4
News How can a city with 58,000 homeless people cont... Apr '18 ThomasA 24
LAPD-Chief Evicted by FBI Mar '18 Becks son HOMELESS 1
News What does Californiaa s 1994 immigration battle... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Wildchild 1

Westwood Jobs

Personal Finance

Westwood Mortgages