Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,179

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

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179344 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.firstthings.com/blo gs/firstthoughts/2011/12/15/a- question-for-same-sex-marriage -advocates/
A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:
[Lambda Legal attorney Hayley Gorenberg] had begun, in her prepared remarks, by calling on a standard of “rights” that cannot be defeated by appeals to “tradition.” And she had mocked judges who, in the early decisions on the case for same-sex marriage, had simply turned to a dictionary definition of marriage.
Yet, in her response to my point about plural marriages, Gorenberg herself turned immediately to tradition and to received definitions. Marriage just is a “binary institution,” she asserted, and changing that fact would entail all sorts of inconveniences.(The historic existence of polygamy in many places is proof that these inconveniences are not insurmountable, but this did not slow her down.)
Why mere tradition was now owed such automatic allegiance, she did not pause to explain. Now the prospect of altering a “whole raft of laws” associated with marriage filled her with horror and incredulity. She seemed quite oblivious of the fact that she was making my argument for me. Where was her concern about changing all the details and complexities of a forest of family law planted thick with assumptions about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, always of opposite sexes?
Same-sex marriage advocates like Gorenberg are guilty of precisely the sin they accuse SSM skeptics of—arbitrary, non-principled exclusion of certain persons from marriage.(Agree or disagree with their principles, the skeptics have offered principled reasons for limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.)
The question I have for SSM advocates is this: Do you support polygamy (and just don’t want the public to know) or do you deny that there’s any irony in your incomplete marriage revisionism?
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.

Marry 15 women for all I care.

In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Hot gassers

Monrovia, CA

#179345 Feb 11, 2013
Blow it out your catalitic converter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179346 Feb 11, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.

See.....that didn't hurt a bit.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179347 Feb 11, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Seriously, who gives a mangina about same sex marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry a man for all I care.
In the meantime, Polygamy has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the individuals involved.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179348 Feb 11, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179349 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.
See.....that didn't hurt a bit.
It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.
Raggers

Monrovia, CA

#179351 Feb 11, 2013
Non will be needed from now on, the record is just fine as is.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#179352 Feb 11, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179353 Feb 11, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".
And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#179355 Feb 12, 2013
Racial differences are tiny and unimportant but gender differences are great and essential to the survival of the human race. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for marriage as one man and one woman.

If you reject segregation, reject gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage integrated and gender diverse as male/female.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179357 Feb 12, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".
Funny, I am not a bigot, but you are. I support marriage equality. Do you? Not just for people you approve of but for everyone?

Funny, I supported civil rights for interracial marriage in those days. Did you?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179358 Feb 12, 2013
Wonder if that hypocrite "Big D" is going to rant against equal rights for groups he doesn't approve of again today.

Better that than those religion jags he goes on and bores us all with!

He goes on and on like some quacked out fundie on Modesto meth!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Big D(ope)!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179359 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.
Some of them, like the jackass "Big D" aren't even shy about it. He says polygamists are child molesters, welfare cheats and all around scumbags!

And he thinks it's perfectly fine to believe that and still be a champion of equal rights (but only for people he likes).
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179360 Feb 12, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179361 Feb 12, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179362 Feb 12, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet
How so?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179363 Feb 12, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet
".....monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"

What in that statement is "soaking wet"?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179364 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?
Gawdd you people really are clueless. Do single couples have the same rights and privileges of marries couples?

How about married couples VRS Civil Unions???

Lets see if YOU can find out.

How about this. A gay couple, been together for 25 years. One is involved in a horrific auto crash, leaves him brain dead, can the other ask to have the plug pulled?????( If he is even allowed in the room)

Income tax, wills, probate, the list is quite extensive
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#179365 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it arrogance or naiveté? What you think don't anyone else is going to apply language, "marriage equality", from the SSM movement for their own cause? Every victory for SSM, is a victory for plural marriage. We both know it. Why fight it? Deny it all you want, but we both know its true. Just as Kody Brown and the Missuses Brown. You must cringe every time they give an interview expressing support for SSM.
who?
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#179366 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"
When did heterosexuals stop getting married?

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL 71,100
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 12 Alex Montgomery 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:15 am PST