Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,795

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181561 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Was that an "ooops, I was wrong?" I didn't think so.... you don't have it in you to be honest.
p.s. your "angry" argument is a strawman.
No your response is.

If the archaic federal law is repealed, as it should be because it's based on ignorance and prejudice, there will be one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy.

California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.

You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181563 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Your approach is counterproductive, achieving the opposite effect than what you hope.
If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181564 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, aren't you the great humanitarian.....
Unfortunately, here in the USA, there is no Constitution guarantee of equal rights. The guarantee is equal protection under the law. How many times does that need to be repeated before learning occurs with you?
There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, Miss Thing. Even for people you don't approve of.

When the federal law aginst poly is repealed, state laws will be easy to overcome. State laws to protect public morality by prohibiting what has been regarded as immoral sexual conduct just can't stand constitutional scrutiny.

Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181565 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.
No it isn't. Bigamy laws were on the books well before DOMA.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181566 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.
As it is now, the government doesn't recognize poly so only one wife can receive benefits through her husband. The others are considered single mothers and get lots of free stuff as such. More than they would if the government recognized the wives.

So your "welfare cheat" argument is really stupid, it's caused by idiots like you and the government's dumb policies. To blame it on polygamists is ridiculous.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181567 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181568 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?
More ad hominem dopiness.

Anything to avoid the slippery slope argument which is easily countered, But you are too dumb to do it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181569 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?
Except I haven't made any. Try a different strawman, maybe?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181570 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.
I dont think the Brown case has anything to do with Prop 8

You are right
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181571 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.
HA HA! So funny! A criminal case against someone based on their choice of who to marry and love. What a riot.

Brown said "There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”

On 1 June 2012, the criminal case against the Browns was dropped. However the suit filed by the Browns remains active after a federal judge refused to dismiss it, saying "strategic attempt to use the mootness doctrine to evade review in this case draws into question the sincerity of [the Utah County Attorney’s] contention that prosecution of plaintiffs for violating this statute is unlikely to recur".
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181572 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Except I haven't made any. Try a different strawman, maybe?
He already tired the sister argument but that didn’t go over so well
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181573 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.
I think you are not clear on the slippery slope created by the judge's decision.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181574 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
More ad hominem dopiness.
Anything to avoid the slippery slope argument which is easily countered, But you are too dumb to do it.
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. It's Logic 101.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181575 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?
I don't. But Big D's and your attempts to shout me down and censor me seem like you do.

I argue there is a slippery slope. You scream and whine there isn't and offer nothing to support that. Except the off topic card. It's not off topic and you know it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181576 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont think the Brown case has anything to do with Prop 8
You are right
It's their way of hijacking the thread, because it will all be over in a few months and they know they're gonna lose big time. Wouldn't it be wild if the SCOTUS decision covers the entire 9th Circuit?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181577 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He already tired the sister argument but that didn’t go over so well
Why can't I marry my sister? You refuse to say.

Your "marry my goat" argument was a real doozy!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181578 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are not clear on the slippery slope created by the judge's decision.
And there it is folks!

The reason Frankie constantly brings up Poly, the slippery slope argument used against Same Sex Marriage!

First same sex marriage, next dogs and cats will start having Dats ( or is it Cogs )

You going to start being honest about it now?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181579 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are not clear on the slippery slope created by the judge's decision.
Clear enough to know that a slippery slope argument, whatever the details, is a fallacious argument.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

hehehe

you tickle me.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181580 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't I marry my sister? You refuse to say.
Your "marry my goat" argument was a real doozy!
Because she doesn’t want you, ask your goat
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181581 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA! So funny! A criminal case against someone based on their choice of who to marry and love. What a riot.
Brown said "There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”
On 1 June 2012, the criminal case against the Browns was dropped. However the suit filed by the Browns remains active after a federal judge refused to dismiss it, saying "strategic attempt to use the mootness doctrine to evade review in this case draws into question the sincerity of [the Utah County Attorney’s] contention that prosecution of plaintiffs for violating this statute is unlikely to recur".
Here we go again..... you are so defective.

The Browns went on tv and ADVERTIZED the fact that they were breaking Utah law. Charges were brought and dropped. The Browns are attempting to get that law overturned. They are NOT SEEKING LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THEIR "MARRIAGE" So spare us the martyr to the cause dog&pony show.

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.

Los Angeles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
pa***in relief sizzurp kwsh for all 1 hr joe kush 1
News Finding right fit for Los Angeles still eludes NFL (Apr '14) Sun bhesh 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Sun Save you lives 19,719
How can I delete my topix account? (Sep '11) Sun stacey Barron 12
Marco Rubio in 2016! Sat Junior Rodrigues ... 30
News Mel Gibson apologizes for drunk driving (Jul '06) Sat swedenforever 31
News Obama to make fast Los Angeles visit for TV sho... Sat trying 2

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at March 30 at 8:57AM PDT

Los Angeles Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Los Angeles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]