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 (Page 7,914)

Showing posts 158,261 - 158,280 of199,068
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181345
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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?
Batting order

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181346
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Hi rizzo, aren't you going to be next up on the trial court issues in the city of Bell, California?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181347
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's way better than your "marry your goat" argument against marriage equality.
It's almost unbelievable you are so stupid as to use that dumb argument and not notice you're acting just like the bigots against SSM.
I talked to your sister, she doesnít want you, maybe your goat will.

( chuckle )

Frankie, we all know already, you have no actual interest in poly marriage, you donít actually want to marry your sister, and you are refraining from telling us about your feelings toward you goat.

You only use these subjects as a way to try and attack supporters of Same Sex Marriage

You arenít fooling anyone.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181348
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal aspects of granting same sex marriage are pretty simple. Not much different than for traditional marriage. The legal aspects of polygamy will be more complicated. But not preventative. They are much less complicated than you think. They can easily be worked out.
But that's irrelevant. It's no reason to deny equal protection. Try again.
We can only deny if a group officially asks from a legal perspective, presents the case, builds public support.

that takes some work, work you have already stated you are not willing to do.

( pleas mention Utah, I could use another laugh today )

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181349
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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?
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.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181350
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Striking down prop 8 bodes well for polgamy.
And I'm very glad that exposes your hypocrisy and makes you very angry.
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181351
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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?
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?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181352
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Straight not zigzag wrote:
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.
Next thing you know, closet queens might be forced out.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181353
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.
Here we go with the NARTH bullshit propaganda spew....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181354
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support gay marriage. What don't you understand about that jackass?
Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181355
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181356
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181357
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181358
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181359
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181360
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181361
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181362
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181363
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181364
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 158,261 - 158,280 of199,068
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••