Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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

#179401 Feb 12, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you whining for a "redefinition" for polygamy?
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15...
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179402 Feb 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
But the current definition violates the 14th Amendment.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179403 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki /Polygamy_in_North_America#sec tion_9
<quoted text>
Is it really redefining it?
Polygamy in the United States has a long history....
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179404 Feb 12, 2013
ABSTRACTThis article examines the validity of a challenge to anti-polygamy statutes through the Due Process Clause, beginning with a discussion of the social and legal history of polygamy in the United States. Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time, has always been illegal in the United States. Those who have challenged the constitutionality of anti-polygamy statutes have generally done so through the First Amendment, claiming that anti-polygamy statutes impinge upon the free exercise of religion. In the United States, polygamy is almost exclusively associated with the Mormon Church. Thus, in order to fully understand the legal and social history of polygamy, it is necessary to begin with the history of the Mormon Church. The definitions of "marriage" and "family" are changing. The United States is no longer a society where nuclear families dominate. More states are beginning to recognize same-sex marriages and the percentage of divorced families and single-parent households continues to soar. While marriage was once a primarily public institution, it is becoming increasingly more private as courts recognize the need for families to personally define themselves without state interference.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
But the current definition violates the 14th Amendment.
That all depends on the intepreter. Some courts, judges, states say it does, other courts, judges, and states say it doesn't.

Here's Frankie's link.....see above.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179405 Feb 12, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The only obsession here is yours, Fruitcake. Your obsession with me.
Do you have a better argument against marriage equality then the Big D "You're obsessed!" Straw man? I admit it's better than your old "You're a liar!" straw man, but it's still a just a straw man designed to cover your hypocrisy.
Why are you a hypocrite against equal rights? Don't say because all poly people are criminals and child abusers, we heard that. It's ignorant and stupid.
What possible harm would a marriage of three adult committed women possibly cause your bigoted ass?
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179406 Feb 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179407 Feb 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0
I'm the fake fundie I presume?

Who cares what you believe, you are stupid.

Why would I lie dummy? Think real hard and come up with your dopey reason, I would love to hear it.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179408 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?
I cannot see how you can support one without supporting the other. And none of these clowns ever even attempt to explain it, they just straw man it or filibuster it. Dismiss is as a fish!(red herring)

You are consistent. You don't support either. I am consistent I support both. All these other jackasses support only same sex and are ignorant and bigoted about poly. They are hypocrites, plain and simple.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179409 Feb 12, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see
Great argument fruitcake.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179410 Feb 12, 2013
I love it. Anyone who doesn't agree with Rose_NoHo is a troll!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179411 Feb 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0
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

#179412 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?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179413 Feb 12, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see
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?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179414 Feb 12, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great argument fruitcake.
Mormon boy, I was offering a suggestion that would make poly marriage as legitimate as any other kind of marriage.

and you still scream and stamp your feet because you think you know what someone is saying while you are actually totally clueless.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179415 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?
If these jackasses represented the gay marriage movement I would be against it! I have to keep reminding myself that they don't.

My main reason for not being against gay marriage is I see no harm in it. And I have gay friends I want to see happy.

If we allow gay marriage I don't see why we can still not allow poly marriage. So there's my position in a nutshell. I see no harm in either.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179416 Feb 12, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Mormon boy, I was offering a suggestion that would make poly marriage as legitimate as any other kind of marriage.
and you still scream and stamp your feet because you think you know what someone is saying while you are actually totally clueless.
"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179417 Feb 12, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Mormon boy...
You're a bigot. Against equal rights due to extreme ignorance.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179418 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?
I have no idea

still that idea would work

every religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cult

and the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.

One church could call marriage between only a man and a woman
Another church could do same sex marriages
and even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it that

and all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unions

and they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.

The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179419 Feb 12, 2013
The key to this would be the government no longer recognizing the word... marriage, as any kind of legal term, the government only recognizing civil contracts.

That would solve the mess for everyone.

( granted there would be screaming from the hilltops as currently married couples would be under the same contract. But it would not harm my marriage, I donít care what the government calls it, and I could care less what any religion calls it, we define our marriage in personal terms, and the law by the legal term )
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179420 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?
He's just mad. So mad it makes him silly-stupid.

It brings out his inner bigot nicely though.

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
News Looking Back at Monterey County: Fire on Canner... 14 hr Joe 1
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) May 1 Apathy 99
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 19 rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr '15 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr '15 svorpion 1,531
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]