Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,397

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
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181621 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Am I too provocative for you to handle son?
Hardly. You're too stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181622 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy has been far more active than calling gay couples married.
In any culture. Anywhere. At any time.
Smile.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Not in the US and certainly not lately, so not anywhere and anytime. Same Sex marriage is legal in 10 states and DC, how many is Poly legal in... I will give you a hint..... none
There are today over a hundred thousand legally married gay couples in the US alone, far more than Poly marriages
I am sure I would find the same true in the 17 other countries that legally marry same sex couples.
Welcome to today
However if Poly is so “active” why has there not been more of a push to make it legal?
However if Poly is so “active” why has there not been more of a push to make it legal?
Nice try.

Polygamy has existed in cultures from start to finish throughout human history, and been fully accepted in many. Gay 'marriage' has never been fully accepted and only extremely brief and rarely observed.

And yes, polygamy showed up in the US long ago, and has never been extinguished. Only in the last decade has gay 'marriages' attempted to get a foothold. Hardly a comparison.

As many posters point out, there always has been a push, and if gay couples impose their relationship on marriage, polygamy will legally be required to be accepted. You know that.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181623 Feb 27, 2013
Remember the pitfalls

While you are getting those signatures for your ballot measure, if Utah suddenly recognizes Poly Marriage, you just lost your entire case, as that could not possibly have come from Same Sex marriage.

Just want you to be aware of the pitfall in your strawm..... I mean...in your argument.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181624 Feb 27, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years,
wife #2, married 10 years,
wife #3 Married, 5 years,
wife # 4 married 1 year,
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me who will receive his social security, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
1. If marriage is dumbed down to a friendship as a civil right, it does not matter what laws will be affected.

2. Which brings us to your claim that gay marriage won't affect any standing laws. A silly assertion that your own example proves will require legal changes among numerous other consequences.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181625 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy has been far more active than calling gay couples married.
In any culture. Anywhere. At any time.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Nice try.
Polygamy has existed in cultures from start to finish throughout human history, and been fully accepted in many. Gay 'marriage' has never been fully accepted and only extremely brief and rarely observed.
And yes, polygamy showed up in the US long ago, and has never been extinguished. Only in the last decade has gay 'marriages' attempted to get a foothold. Hardly a comparison.
As many posters point out, there always has been a push, and if gay couples impose their relationship on marriage, polygamy will legally be required to be accepted. You know that.
Smile.
You said "anytime, anywhere"

wrong... the time is now, the place is here in the US
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181626 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy has been far more active than calling gay couples married.
In any culture. Anywhere. At any time.
Smile.
So what? Are you attempting to use an appeal to popularity to prove your point?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181627 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As many posters point out, there always has been a push, and if gay couples impose their relationship on marriage, polygamy will legally be required to be accepted.
Smile.
Really? What law is that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181628 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why aren't the Browns asking for it?
Stupid question.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181629 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says they were denied equal protection?
Polyamorists wishing to marry are denied equal protection Miss Thing.

The are not allowed to do it. They will go to prison if they do.

Same sex and opposite sex marriages are allowed by the feds. You can do it. You won't go to prison, you'll even get lots of free stuff!

This is not equal protection. Are you starting to get it Miss Thing?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181630 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What law is that?
Logic. Fairness. Equal protection.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181631 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Hardly. You're too stupid.
Ad hominem dopiness.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181632 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. If marriage is dumbed down to a friendship as a civil right, it does not matter what laws will be affected.
2. Which brings us to your claim that gay marriage won't affect any standing laws. A silly assertion that your own example proves will require legal changes among numerous other consequences.
Smile.
How does smae sex marriage change any laws?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181633 Feb 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad hominem dopiness.
Ad hominem ,Hello Frankie
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181634 Feb 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
OK let me put it in very simple terms for you.
You are trying to say that one leads to another which leads to another etc
Work to get poly legal in one state, a state that already recognizes same sex marriages ( else your argument won’t work ) and then we can discuss if one led to the other.
If Utah recognizes poly, that won’t work, because Utah does not ( and will not soon ) recognize same sex marriages.
The Brown case is in a state ( I think ) which does not recognize same sex marriages so that certainly would not apply as one leading to the other.
The only way you can even start to make the case that one leads to the other is to get Poly recognized in a state that does recognize same sex marriages ( and preferably not in any state that does not ) and then you can just barely start to make the case that one leads to the other.
after that you can work on your sister, and then perhaps your goat if you really want to carry it that far.:)
But before you can make any argument that one leads to another, you need to get one state to recognize it, a state that currently recognizes same sex marriage.
So far… you got zip
Go get google glass and we will watch, it will be fun!
I am saying legalizing same sex marriage will make it much easier to legalize polygamy.

And it will, it's logical, grasshopper. Glad it makes you so silly mad. It makes me happy. I like same sex marriage being allowed I also like poly marriage being allowed.

Marriage is good for society ALL marriages. Not just Big D approved marriages. You have no say in anyone's equal rights. You don't matter. Just grin and bear it. Won't hurt you at all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181635 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why aren't the Browns asking for it?
One step at a time.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181636 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One step at a time.
And Neil Andblowme or whatever his current sock is cringes with each step!

Good! He has found some people find social change very painful.

No pain for Neil Andblowme, no gain for equality.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181637 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You disagree with that statement?
What statement? The one where I called you an idiot?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181638 Feb 27, 2013
Funny how when Jizzybirdy shows up, the judge-it rigging goes into high gear!

You gotta try and make it credible Jizzy you big stupid galoot!

Too funny. What a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181639 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> So what? Are you attempting to use an appeal to popularity to prove your point?
That's one of your sidekick Jizzybirdy's best arguments against polygamy. It's not popular enough.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181640 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make up the rules in Logic. It's Logic 101.
The slippery slope argument is what it is.
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
let's try this ploy:
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
Making the connection between same-sex marriage legalization leading to poly and incestuous marriages does not meet the definition of a slippery slope argument as the connection is already being made. Both in the US and in other countries.

Perhaps you should read that definition a little slower next time.

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
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) 6 hr Joe Balls 1,530
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 9 hr orange 71,556
Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) 10 hr Vicky Lopez 9
Dual language immersion program offered for kin... (Jan '10) 13 hr fed up 30
Beware of Monterey Audi. Feb 4 Dave 1
Multiple suspects in custody for Seaside shootings Jan '15 Anonymous 1
Peninsula high school students arrested in 'fig... (Sep '09) Jan '15 trey 108
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:55 pm PST