Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
158,181 - 158,200 of 200,336 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181265
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".
Why are you a hypocrite?

Polygamy is marriage. poly+marriage. Just like same sex+marriage.
It deserves the same respect and consideration as any other marriage.

Please tell us why you believe it doesn't, bigot. We won't wait.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181266
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.
There are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. It should be allowed.

What are your rational arguments against poly marriage? The answer is not "because it is a red herring" or "it's a whole separate issue, it just is," or similar Rose_NoHo stupidity.

Why would you tell three committed men wishing to marry no, because it's a fish? Or no. it's "a separate issue"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181270
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

On May 6, 2009, the State of Maine became the fifth U.S. State to codify the legal construct of "same sex marriage." Supporters labeled the passage of the new law as a "civil rights victory," a matter of "fairness and equality" for "all" as well as "equal protection under the law." The new law was titled, "L.D. 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." But the Act, itself, very specifically does "discriminate" - against consenting adult polygamists.

On April 22, 2009, up to 4,000 Maine citizens attended the Public Hearing at the Augusta Civic Center. As expected, marriage controllers opposed the law, wanting to continue special rights only for those who choose "one man, one woman." Homosexuals and supporters wanted to further expand the receipt of those special rights to those who choose "same sex marriage" too.

Mark Henkel, speaking as the National Polygamy Advocate and as a Maine citizen, also made a presentation at the Hearing - as "Neither For Nor Against." When he stood up to speak, the entire room immediately hushed, except for the overwhelming clicking sound of numerous media cameras on him. He noted that both homosexuals and marriage controllers re-define marriage. Factually, polygamy has always been included in the definition. Henkel offered the polygamy rights win-win solution to end the government marriage debate, the abolition of all big government marriage control for unrelated consenting adults. When he had finished, many people approached him, expressing their surprise and support for the alternative proposal. Despite the crush of photography, the major Maine media chose only to "sell" L.D. 1020 to persuade their audiences.

Over the subsequent two weeks, the bill was rushed through the Legislature and was immediately signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6th – extremely quickly, indeed.

Previously opposing "gay marriage" in favor of civil unions, the Governor explained, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law… Under the Constitution, we are all the same. We are supposed to make sure we are all protected from discrimination, regardless of the differences between us. My responsibility, that I swore an oath to do, is that I'm there for everybody."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181271
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Homosexual political activists, identifying themselves as fighting for the "civil rights" of the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered" (GLBT) community, rejoiced in the new statute. Declaring that the new law was simply about "fairness and equality" for "all," they proclaimed that Maine had supposedly "ended discrimination" for "everyone."

But the law did no such thing.

Indeed, it begins by codifying the re-defining-parameter of marriage as "2 people." Namely, in Sec. 2, L.D. 1020 declares, "19-A MRSA §650-A is enacted to read: Codification of marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people." It would thus seem that the homosexual activists are not really fighting for the "civil rights" of the "B" in GLBT, after all. Apparently, homosexuals - despite their claims - do not really believe that "bisexuals" are "born that way."

But seriously, way beyond "bisexuals" and the humor of that obvious dichotomy, the new law does take that numerical "discrimination" further. In Sec. 6., the new law re-writes 19-A MRSA §701, Prohibited marriage.

The original §701 statute had been delineated into the following Clauses. 1. Marriage out of State to evade law. 1-A. Certain marriages performed in another state not recognized in this State. 2. Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity. 3. Persons under disability. 4. Polygamy. 5. Same sex marriage prohibited.

The last two Clauses had originally declared the following. "4. Polygamy. A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom the party is not divorced is void." "5. Same sex marriage prohibited. Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage."

L.D. 1020 strikes out Clause 5 ("same sex marriage") completely and alters Clause 1-A to apply only to Clauses 2-4 instead of 2-5. But Clause 4 was left intact - still prohibiting polygamy.

If keeping one and striking out the other Clause had happened in reverse, homosexuals would be screaming, "Discrimination! Bigotry!"

At the Public Hearing, when marriage controllers had argued against L.D. 1020, saying that children need a father and a mother, homosexuals responded that children only need two adults. Yet, Maine's new law "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamy, even though it fulfills both arguments - and more! As Mark Henkel asked everyone, "If Heather can have two mommies, why can't she have two mommies and a daddy?"

For all the hype of supposed "equality" for "all," L.D. 1020 completely left consenting adult polygamists "unequal" indeed. As for "fairness," Maine's Bigamy law actually criminalizes the very free speech itself of a married man, for only saying an unlicensed "girlfriend" is a "wife." Indeed, 17-A MRSA Pt 2, Ch 23,§551 declares: "A person is guilty of bigamy if, having a spouse, he intentionally marries or purports to marry, knowing that he is legally ineligible to do so." The argument of "fairness" is utterly ignored for consenting adult polygamists.

Hence, Maine's "same sex marriage" law is really not "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage" at all. The law brings no "equality and fairness" for consenting adult polygamists, and especially no "equal protection under the law." By the same terms of the law's supporters, "discrimination" against consenting adult polygamy has not been ended.

Instead, government marriage control continues... just re-defined.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php...
Ranchitas

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181272
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pay someone else to write your blogs, the ones so far stink.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181273
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You can keep pushing your hater agenda but the fact is Gay Americans don’t have to care about or support any social injustice (whether real or perceived) in order to deserve marriage rights regardless of any hypocrisy you so proudly point out. You’re superior attitude only exemplifies how non-gays marginalize anyone they perceive to be inferior. Truth is we are organized, smart, funded and powerful and will have Gay Marriage Equality in all fifty states. You and your ilk can continue to prattle on and on about how Gay Americans have to be considered “good enough” to deserve equal rights to no avail. We’ll remain focused on and win the war for Gay Marriage Equality. Besides Gay Americans have been called much worse than selfish and hypocrites, so, if you think your lame insults will change anything you’re sorely mistaken.
Gay Americans don't have to care about any social injustice (perceived or real), but to act indifferently about any such occurrences after asking Straight Americans to care about the Gay Americans shows a distinct "I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder" mentality that warrants the question: "Why should we have been asked to care about you, when you are so ready to ignore the same plight in another group receiving the same treatment ?" Your side appears to be very selfish, indeed. "You're" is a contraction of "You Are", often misused by the posters in this room, as is the word "Your", often used in the place that "You're" should be, and vice versa. I state this, not to taunt you for your misuse, but, to call attention to the fact that many make this most simple of mistakes. It is no superior attitude to promote the same fairness for another discriminated- against group, such as yours was, only a few years ago. This is not a hater agenda, only a noticing of the glaring social injustices inflicted upon another often ignored group. Since we are on about "Marriage "Equality", it seems to be only fair. To claim that polygamy is illegal is a weak ploy, since sodomy laws made homosexuality a crime until recently. Now it seems fine to single out who remains outlawed, and who does not, in the name of "Equality" ? Not fair at all. Since we find ourselves at a threshold moment, namely, redefining what is allowed in America, we must accept the changes in other groups, else fall victim to the very narrow minded vision that we have been accused of. Marginalizing polygamists is the same crime that marginalizing gays has been, up until now. Be smart. Be organized. Be fair, though. This isn't about insults, it is about redefining "Marriage", and who is to say that homosexuals are acceptable, but not polygamists ? You ? How marginalizing you now appear, if you cannot reach out a helping hand to another group, with which your side has so much in common. I have posted to you in a non-insulting manner, perhaps for the first time, and may well do so again.
Diez y Siete

Novi, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181274
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Si
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181275
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really an ignorant piece of work. Let me spell it out for you one final time. I support equal marriage for Gay Americans who what to marry the ONE person they love. Do you get it you stupid jackass?
And I ask: What gives us the right to restrict the number to "one" ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181276
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Frank why are you so gosh darn mad? Tell me Frank do you always suffer from feelings of persecution and inadequacies in the bed room? Seek help, see a Mental health professional. I mean that in a nice way Frank. No one should suffer from short penis syndrome. You can check into getting a implant, maybe find a woman who does not know what 1 inch looks like. Hey you might convince her its 9. Who knows.
Projecting your own problems onto another isn't a valid cure for your problems. If those solutions worked for you, well, fine. I doubt that he suffers from the same problems that have plagued you.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181278
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Projecting your own problems onto another isn't a valid cure for your problems. If those solutions worked for you, well, fine. I doubt that he suffers from the same problems that have plagued you.
Yeah, it's always talk of small dick with that guy. Makes me wonder too.

Man who talk too big, small. The Old Papasans used to say.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181279
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And I ask: What gives us the right to restrict the number to "one" ?
He's real mad and won't say. Probably sulking today.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181280
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
On May 6, 2009, the State of Maine became the fifth U.S. State to codify the legal construct of "same sex marriage." Supporters labeled the passage of the new law as a "civil rights victory," a matter of "fairness and equality" for "all" as well as "equal protection under the law." The new law was titled, "L.D. 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." But the Act, itself, very specifically does "discriminate" - against consenting adult polygamists.
On April 22, 2009, up to 4,000 Maine citizens attended the Public Hearing at the Augusta Civic Center. As expected, marriage controllers opposed the law, wanting to continue special rights only for those who choose "one man, one woman." Homosexuals and supporters wanted to further expand the receipt of those special rights to those who choose "same sex marriage" too.
Mark Henkel, speaking as the National Polygamy Advocate and as a Maine citizen, also made a presentation at the Hearing - as "Neither For Nor Against." When he stood up to speak, the entire room immediately hushed, except for the overwhelming clicking sound of numerous media cameras on him. He noted that both homosexuals and marriage controllers re-define marriage. Factually, polygamy has always been included in the definition. Henkel offered the polygamy rights win-win solution to end the government marriage debate, the abolition of all big government marriage control for unrelated consenting adults. When he had finished, many people approached him, expressing their surprise and support for the alternative proposal. Despite the crush of photography, the major Maine media chose only to "sell" L.D. 1020 to persuade their audiences.
Over the subsequent two weeks, the bill was rushed through the Legislature and was immediately signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6th – extremely quickly, indeed.
Previously opposing "gay marriage" in favor of civil unions, the Governor explained, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law… Under the Constitution, we are all the same. We are supposed to make sure we are all protected from discrimination, regardless of the differences between us. My responsibility, that I swore an oath to do, is that I'm there for everybody."
And we are all treated the equally when it comes to getting married to more than one person, so it's not an equal rights issue. Should we all be able to marry more than one person? Well, I'm sure there's gotta be a forum about that subject somewhere...if not, why not start one?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181281
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Racial slur reported.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181282
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And we are all treated the equally when it comes to getting married to more than one person, so it's not an equal rights issue. Should we all be able to marry more than one person? Well, I'm sure there's gotta be a forum about that subject somewhere...if not, why not start one?
As we are all treated equally when it comes to getting married to one person of the opposite sex as well. Equal is as equal does.
jkhjhjube6trbyey b

Bentonville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181283
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

hope they all suck each-other to death!!!!!!!!!!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181284
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As we are all treated equally when it comes to getting married to one person of the opposite sex as well. Equal is as equal does.
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.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. Not equal.
Everybody can only marry one person. Equal.
Should everybody be able to marry more than one person?
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?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181285
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

jkhjhjube6trbyeyb wrote:
hope they all suck each-other to death!!!!!!!!!!
What a way to go!!!!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181286
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really an ignorant piece of work. Let me spell it out for you one final time. I support equal marriage for Gay Americans who what to marry the ONE person they love. Do you get it you stupid jackass?
Yeah, we get it- you are a bigot. You don't care about equal right's just your cause.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181287
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Frank could you explain the ramifications of Poly marriage with regards to our court system, divorce and social security benefits? Same sex marriage in no way affects them, can the same be said of Poly marriage????
So because it might be "difficult", that is a good enough reason to deny someone the equal right to be happy?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181288
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they let you out finally? Well, keep taking your meds on schedule, or they might have to come get you again, stupid.
Poor Rose, she can't even get people on the internet to take her seriously.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••