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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181317 Feb 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, don't have a right to be happy. As horrible as you are, you obviously aren't, and no law is being broken.
You're pretty horrible yourself toots. And stupid.

But you have the right to pursue happiness as we all do. Stop wasting it.

Get a job. Start paying taxes.
Straight not zigzag

Pacifica, CA

#181318 Feb 25, 2013
Gross, same sex relationships and marriage is just a perversion of love , next thing you know people who love their Dog so much they marry it. when humans make love they make children and not poop.
Mother

Delano, CA

#181319 Feb 25, 2013
Ugh

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181321 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
If nobody else will answer this, then I will:
Our right to limit marriage to one person is backed by the fact that no stigma in our psyche rationally provokes us to want to mate with more than one person. Maybe on a conscious level that may seem like the case sometimes, but it doesn't resonate subconsciously, or at least has not yet been shown to by psychologists.
Which is exactly the opposite case for homosexuality. Scientists, biologists, psychologists - they've all reached the same conclusion regarding this. When it's looked at in an objective, unbiased light, any experienced practician can see the trend: homosexuality is just as genetic as taste buds. The desire to commit bigamy is not.
Gay relationships are not the equivalent of bigamy and shouldn't be equated as such.
BS

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior.

What does that mean in part?

A constraint on the evolutionary PRIORITY to pass DNA along to as many as possible. Marriage actually constrains the evolutionary desire for numerous mates, and requires the male care for their offspring and support the mother.

What you actually point out is clear evidence that homosexuality is a genetic DEFECT.

Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181322 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
You bet, buddy.
History has shown this: given enough momentum, a rights-activism movement in America cannot be stopped (i.e. racial equality, gender equality, the American revolution...)
Everyone has a purpose. That's what sets the two sides of this debate apart; one side's extreme is shown to consistently show more faith in human capability than the other.
And it ain't your side, if I may resort to briefly using Texan slang.
Blacks were able to clearly show human identity with other races. Women are having a much more difficult time. Why? Because there are clear and obvious distinctions between genders.

Before gays claim equal rights, they have to accurately prove identity.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective failure of not just mating behavior, but the very core goal of evolution.

You don't just fail to equate the ss 'marriage' movement to marriage, you fail to equate it to any legitimate rights movement!

Hilariously, you first attempt to ignore one of many simple implications; If you dumb down marriage to a friendship, you open a Pandora's box of consequences, the most obvious being bigamy.

First you try to ignore the point, then you try to eradicate it out of this discussion by moving it to another thread, and now you assert the momentum overrules the legal implications that show the idiocy of your position. Incredulous denial, not to mention unmitigated ignorance.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181323 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to legalize multiple-partner marriage than go right on ahead, see where you get.
It will immediately follow any legalization of ss 'marriage', along with a host of other issues. Oh, and distainingly calling it the 'slippery slope' argument doesn't change it's validity.

Already, the extension of spouse benefits in the military to gay couples has caused a legitimate claim of discrimination by heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.

The fact is, if committed relationship of any gender is redefined as marriage, the number certainly must also be designated as discrimination. A fundamental reason marriage constrained gender and number was this; A child has one mother and one father. Never any more or less.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181324 Feb 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And we were all treated equally when it came to marrying someone of the same race. But since a white person couldn't marry a black person, while a black person could, they weren't treated equally.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. Not equal.
Actually Rosie we weren't. First, not every racial combination was prohibited, only certain ones. It wasn't applied equally. Second, who or what determined "race"?. Third, there are numerous races/ethnic groups, but only two sexes. Lastly, how is a person who is half of one and half of another classified in terms of who they can marry?
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. Not equal.
Physically impossible. A man can marry a woman and vice versa.
Everybody can only marry one person. Equal.
Should everybody be able to marry more than one person?
Actually they can, its just not legally recognized.
Well, I'm sure you're not the first person to come up with the idea, why not see if there is a forum about that subject?
True, its as old as monogamous marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181325 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Responsible people, meaning anyone but me I suppose.
You can discuss traveling to Mars without knowing the date it will be possible and I can discuss polygamy without knowing the date when it will be possible.
Your beginnings of reasonableness about it is the result of my tireless effort.
You can discuss anything you want, and I can laugh at you for it, just as you do to others.

I have not changed my position at all, I am not opposed to the concept of Poly, but am opposed to groups that have used it to commit criminal acts on the underage.

I would vote in favor of it as I see no logical reason not to, however I donít see the issue coming up in the near term because of the tremendously negative image in the general public

You claim to be reasonable? You are anything but, as nearly everyone has already pointed out
.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#181326 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior.
What does that mean in part?
A constraint on the evolutionary PRIORITY to pass DNA along to as many as possible. Marriage actually constrains the evolutionary desire for numerous mates, and requires the male care for their offspring and support the mother.
What you actually point out is clear evidence that homosexuality is a genetic DEFECT.
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.
Marriage was probably invented by men because of a shortage of women as other men had too many wives.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181327 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
POS try again.
Hi Frankiee, why are you so angry?
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#181328 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha ha. People denied the right to marry because they are "an offence against society" so funny.
What possible harm would a marriage of three women cause you or anyone else?

If enough men married three women, there would not be enought women to go aroung, and some men would not be able to get a single women to marry.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181329 Feb 26, 2013
You know that marriage, of any sort is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Now some feel that this clause,"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does this, however its just a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless it is not in the Constitution. Each state shall construct thier own set of laws, given that the laws do not over ride the Constitution. Many states have laws banning same sex marriage, as they, the law makers have defined marriage between one man and one woman. A few states now recognize same sex marriage, due to discriminatory laws, that ban them. One can only look to Iowa and see that. Now in the case of California, same sex marriage was legal, albeit for a short time, it was nevertheless legal. The legislators then put a voting initiative before the citizens of that state, asking if same sex marriage should be allowed. Now this happened on more than one occasion. As we all know the voters approved the measure, and later a Federal Judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional. You see one a right has been granted, its hard to remove it for a select group, Gays and Lesbians, based upon thier sexuality.

Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage as it does not affect any standing laws with regards to divorce, Social security, medicare, medicaid, insurance, drivers licenses etc. The laws as they stand will work seamlessly. That how ever can not be said for Polygamy. Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181330 Feb 26, 2013
Dorn wrote:
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha ha. People denied the right to marry because they are "an offence against society" so funny.
What possible harm would a marriage of three women cause you or anyone else?
If enough men married three women, there would not be enought women to go aroung, and some men would not be able to get a single women to marry.
That happens now with losers like Jizzybird. That's the way it is with or without poly marriage. Some men cannot score!

And the numbers will be so tiny, there won't be that many poly marriages to offend bigots like Jizybird's sensibilities anyway.

And of course there may be as many or more women who want multiple men. Just like now!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181331 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.

His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181332 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
You know that marriage, of any sort is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Now some feel that this clause,"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does this, however its just a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless it is not in the Constitution. Each state shall construct thier own set of laws, given that the laws do not over ride the Constitution. Many states have laws banning same sex marriage, as they, the law makers have defined marriage between one man and one woman. A few states now recognize same sex marriage, due to discriminatory laws, that ban them. One can only look to Iowa and see that. Now in the case of California, same sex marriage was legal, albeit for a short time, it was nevertheless legal. The legislators then put a voting initiative before the citizens of that state, asking if same sex marriage should be allowed. Now this happened on more than one occasion. As we all know the voters approved the measure, and later a Federal Judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional. You see one a right has been granted, its hard to remove it for a select group, Gays and Lesbians, based upon thier sexuality.
Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage as it does not affect any standing laws with regards to divorce, Social security, medicare, medicaid, insurance, drivers licenses etc. The laws as they stand will work seamlessly. That how ever can not be said for Polygamy. Some opponents of same sex marriage, seem to think that by allowing SSM, it will then open the doors to further expansion of marriages, that will include, Polygamy, Incest, Plants and animals.
The "it's too complicated" denial of equal protection. Heard it from lots of other dummies. It's bogus. And a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not say "unless it would be complicated."

Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE. That's what equal means dummy. And that's how it should be. And that's how t is. Like it or lump it.

Poly MARRIAGE won't hurt you or anyone else. It deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. They are both MARRIAGE and my choice is as good as your choice.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181333 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.
His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
Yes it is. He will not debate the subject. Just copy cut and paste. Its kind of like herding cats, it just does not work.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181334 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He already mentioned marrying his sister a while back, we are waiting for his desire to marry Goats.
His tactic is cartoonlike in its obviousness
That's the most common tactic the dumb bigots against same sex marriage use. I see you have picked it up as very witty. It's not. It's stupid. Like the dopes that use it as a justification to deny rights.(you). Goats cannot enter into contracts anyway.

Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.

Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#181335 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE......
Actually, you left out the first logical step.

In reality, it's the current ability of heterosexuals to marry that is the leading cause for other groups to demand the right to legally marry. Same sex couples are only asking for the SAME right to marry just one person.

However, same sex couples wanting the SAME right to marry one that already exists for ever heterosexual in the country is not similar to straight people demanding the right to marry, not only ONE, but many at one time.

Separate issues. Separate effects on society.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181336 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "it's too complicated" denial of equal protection. Heard it from lots of other dummies. It's bogus. And a violation of the 14th amendment. It does not say "unless it would be complicated."
Yes. One movement builds on another. Marriage equality for same sex MARRIAGE will lead to equality for other forms of MARRIAGE including poly MARRIAGE. That's what equal means dummy. And that's how it should be. And that's how t is. Like it or lump it.
Poly MARRIAGE won't hurt you or anyone else. It deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. They are both MARRIAGE and my choice is as good as your choice.
But why do something that complex when few are even calling for it?

There arenít people out there getting signatures for propositions, except perhaps in your great state of marriage equality, Utah ( that is so funny, best laugh I have had on these forums yet, thanks )

Until there is actually a call for it, by people that are actually interested in investing their lives and donate for the cause as has happened with other such social change, nothing is going to happen.

so far all we have are fairly reclusive groups that donít even want government recognition, and a lunatic on an internet forum that has already admitted he is not personally interested in poly marriage at all.

Why would we change a plethora of civil laws, when no constituency is calling for it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181337 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. He will not debate the subject. Just copy cut and paste. Its kind of like herding cats, it just does not work.
You hit it on the head, it is a copy and paste argument, it is a play book used for decades against SSM, and meaningless

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) 47 min Frijoles 71,131
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 11:57 am PST