Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#181355 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
People who donít have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181356 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.
I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.
I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.
Yes. It is not my place either. To say who can marry and who cannot. I support everyone's right to marry. Not just approved groups.

As a conservative I fully support same sex marriage. It is not the government's place to decide which genders may marry and by the very same logic it is not the governments place to decide the number of participants in that marriage either.

What harm would a loving committed marriage of three men cause anyone? Those against polygamy will probably never even have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family, it will be so rare.

Supporting polygamy causes all hell to break loose on this thread. That speaks volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181357 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
People who donít have a valid argument against something so use this as a cheap crutch do
Right. I have no valid argument against same sex marriage. There is none. I support same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181358 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Relax fruitcake, I call my girlfriend and grand kids that. They giggle.

I use it with no sexuality connotation whatsoever. Get that chip off your shoulder Miss Thing.

One more failure in your witch hunt. Try harder.

The "you're lying" straw man. So old.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181359 Feb 26, 2013
Batting order wrote:
Hi rizzo, aren't you going to be next up on the trial court issues in the city of Bell, California?
http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/020/clock-cuck...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181360 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
Supporting polygamy causes all hell to break loose on this thread. That speaks volumes.
That is only because it is unrelated to gay people having the same ability to marry just ONE that straight folks already have, and because it is one of the prime straw men thrown around as a reason to prevent gay folks from marrying just that one.

Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse.

But only if that spouse is of the opposite gender.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181361 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant?
You do dummy. And so do I.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181362 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
We know that Miss Thing.

But prop 8 says marriage is for a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage AND polygamy. It's defeat is good for both.

Your anger at that fact and your attempts to deny that fact speak volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181363 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because it is unrelated to gay people having the same ability to marry just ONE that straight folks already have, and because it is one of the prime straw men thrown around as a reason to prevent gay folks from marrying just that one.
Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse.
But only if that spouse is of the opposite gender.
There should be no reason to say "opposite sex marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "poly marriage". It's all just "marriage"

All marriages are worthy of the same respect and consideration.

The government should have no say in who you marry. If they want to offer special benefits to married people, they should respect equal protection.

Either they should stop all the goodies they give to married people, or stop choosing who gets them based on tradition or popularity of their marriages and give them to all marriages.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181364 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that Miss Thing.
But prop 8 says marriage is for a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage AND polygamy. It's defeat is good for both.
Your anger at that fact and your attempts to deny that fact speak volumes.
LOL are you suggesting that polygamy was legal before prop 8?

Wrong!... try again

Same sex marriage was in fact legal before prop 8, and some 18,000 legal same sex marriages were preformed legally before this unconstitutional measure was voted on.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181365 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitcake, I call my girlfriend and grand kids that. They giggle.
I use it with no sexuality connotation whatsoever. Get that chip off your shoulder Miss Thing.
One more failure in your witch hunt. Try harder.
The "you're lying" straw man. So old.
Sure........ we believe you..... wink, wink.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181366 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You do dummy. And so do I.
I never said that.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181367 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that Miss Thing.
But prop 8 says marriage is for a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage AND polygamy. It's defeat is good for both.
Your anger at that fact and your attempts to deny that fact speak volumes.
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will remain illegal when Prop 8 goes down. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy. Your stupidity speaks volumes.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181368 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The government should have no say in who you marry.
Oh dear god..........

Who does legal recognition come from then, shit-for-brains?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181369 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL are you suggesting that polygamy was legal before prop 8?
Wrong!... try again
Same sex marriage was in fact legal before prop 8, and some 18,000 legal same sex marriages were preformed legally before this unconstitutional measure was voted on.
No. It was illegal before prop 8 and it will still be illegal after prop 8 goes away. It's a federal law.

But bear with me on this scenario. The feds rightfully ditch that archaic discriminatory law against polygamy.

So now poly marriage is up to the states. In CA if prop 8 still was in force, you could not poly marry in CA. And the only thing stopping you would be prop 8.

I am saving this post as boilerplate for every time one of you clowns tries to use your dumb "prop 8 has no effect on poly" argument again.

Try again hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181370 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will remain illegal when Prop 8 goes down. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy. Your stupidity speaks volumes.
No. Polygamy was illegal before prop 8 and it will still be illegal after prop 8 goes away. It's a federal law.

But bear with me on this scenario. The feds rightfully ditch that archaic discriminatory law against polygamy.

So now poly marriage is up to the states. In CA if prop 8 still was in force, you could not poly marry in CA. And the only thing stopping you would be prop 8.

I am saving this post as boilerplate for every time one of you clowns tries to use your dumb "prop 8 has no effect on poly" argument again.

Try again hypocrite.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181371 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It was illegal before prop 8 and it will still be illegal after prop 8 goes away. It's a federal law.
But bear with me on this scenario. The feds rightfully ditch that archaic discriminatory law against polygamy.
So now poly marriage is up to the states. In CA if prop 8 still was in force, you could not poly marry in CA. And the only thing stopping you would be prop 8.
I am saving this post as boilerplate for every time one of you clowns tries to use your dumb "prop 8 has no effect on poly" argument again.
Try again hypocrite.
Bear with me hypocrite

Prop 8 is specifically about same sex marriage

It makes no changes whatsoever with Poly marriage which was illegal both before and after prop 8, prop 8 was specifically about same sex marriage, nothing whatsoever to do with Poly Marriage which was already illegal anyway, not so with Same sex marriage.

This attack of yours on same sex marriage is continuing to fail
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181372 Feb 26, 2013
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181373 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Polygamy was illegal before prop 8 and it will still be illegal after prop 8 goes away. It's a federal law.
But bear with me on this scenario. The feds rightfully ditch that archaic discriminatory law against polygamy.
So now poly marriage is up to the states. In CA if prop 8 still was in force, you could not poly marry in CA. And the only thing stopping you would be prop 8.
I am saving this post as boilerplate for every time one of you clowns tries to use your dumb "prop 8 has no effect on poly" argument again.
Try again hypocrite.
Go right ahead. Use your hypothetical as proof. We'll continue to laugh at your simple-mindedness. And when the feds do away with that silly law about free-speech, we'll get your ass thrown in jail. Try again, shit-for-brains.

I'm saving this post as proof of your abject stupidity.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181374 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be no reason to say "opposite sex marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "poly marriage". It's all just "marriage"
All marriages are worthy of the same respect and consideration.
The government should have no say in who you marry. If they want to offer special benefits to married people, they should respect equal protection.
Either they should stop all the goodies they give to married people, or stop choosing who gets them based on tradition or popularity of their marriages and give them to all marriages.
"Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse."

Priceless!

Even homosexuals have that right to marry that opposite gender spouse. Now see how silly you are?

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 Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Jul 22 dGo mneDad lyHo i... 71,943
News Del Rey Oaks Garden Center grand opening schedu... Jul 21 Kathi Buckley Smith 1
drugs Jul 16 JayJay 2
News Sex offender Tom Pollacci pleads not guilty to ... (Mar '09) Jul 15 martin5 360
City of seaside needs to replace more than PD T... Jul 10 fed up 1
Monterey Seafood Restaurant Celebrates its 26 Y... Jul 6 cafefina58 1
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Jun '15 ChaCha 17
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages