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 8,402)

Showing posts 168,021 - 168,040 of200,322
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192477
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes your opinion of the particular god you choose to believe in, is one thing, other believers in that God or other Gods have different opinions.
Our nations laws are above all petty religious beliefs, you can have your opinion, but you don’t get to dictate law to anyone else.
None of us do
You forgot to tell him you will fight for truth justice and the Big D way! Because you are a patriot! And anyone who disagrees with you is not. Stuff like that. Although I have a feeling it's coming...
Streched necks

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192480
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Send them back to their country of origin and let them destroy there own Muslim country.

At 13, Emma still played with dolls and loved nothing more than walking with her pet spaniel, Yet by her 14th birthday,.

Her innocent childhood was over, Emma had been raped and sexually abused in the most grotesque manner by 54 MUSLIM men in Britain.

They have sex rings using white females..Only..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192481
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Polygamy and DOMA
By mark goldfeder

Published: May 11, 2013 01:01AM
Updated: May 11, 2013 01:01AM

While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamy’s core institution and whom it should include. Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn’t just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.

The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.

Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in “ethical non-monogamy”— loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

The push for non-monogamous marriage reveals some unexpected bedfellows: Everyone from former presidents to the remarried elderly couple next door. Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their ‘exclusive, dyadic relationships,’ producing a form of de facto polygamy. Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.

The rise of no-fault divorce has made “polygamy on the installment plan” more and more common for adults of all ages. Whether it’s de facto polygamy in the form of adultery, or serial polygamy with no-fault divorce, we as Americans have already broken the sanctity of the “couple.”

While some believe that plural marriage could lead to harm against women, regulation would protect them. And what about egalitarian polygamy, based on adult consent? Is it inherently abusive? Or more abusive than many “traditional” marriages based on patriarchal domination?

If the concern were third-party harms against children, why would these kids be any different than the thousands who already grow up with more than two parents in their lives? Forget stepparents, open-adoptions, extended familial networks, and other “classic” multi-parental settings. In cases of egg donors and surrogate mothers, courts have ruled that children can have three natural parents. Maybe more is even better; recent studies indicate that children in polyamorous households benefit from increased attention and diversity of role models.

Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.

Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192482
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.

In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage “odious,” and an “offence against society.” In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature’s ability to uphold “morals-based legislation,” the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.

Since then, TV shows such as TLC’s “Sister Wives,” HBO’s “Big Love” and Showtime’s “Polyamory” have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation’s collective living room and consciousness.

With DOMA now on the table, it’s time to bring the issue back to court.

Mark Goldfeder is an adjunct professor of law and religion at Georgia State University, and a member of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.
Pessitor

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192484
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Batteries not included.
Pessitor

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192485
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Condoms for prisoners and porn stars debated at the highest levels?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192486
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.
In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage “odious,” and an “offence against society.” In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature’s ability to uphold “morals-based legislation,” the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.
Since then, TV shows such as TLC’s “Sister Wives,” HBO’s “Big Love” and Showtime’s “Polyamory” have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation’s collective living room and consciousness.
With DOMA now on the table, it’s time to bring the issue back to court.
Mark Goldfeder is an adjunct professor of law and religion at Georgia State University, and a member of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.
In the Loving v. Virginia court case that legalized interracial marriage, the Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, argued for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.

He said, "[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage ... stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

----------

So we've heard all of this before--46 years ago.

Tell me, did interracial marriage lead to polygamy?

Didn't think so...

Come up with some new material.
Politics of 501 c 4s

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192488
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

The 501(c)(4) tax exemption was written for civic groups engaged in efforts to beautify a town, for example, or to build a stadium for a school, or to encourage interest in the arts - social-welfare effects that improve a community at large. Partisan politics should not be part of that picture.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192489
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy and DOMA
By mark goldfeder
Published: May 11, 2013 01:01AM
Updated: May 11, 2013 01:01AM
While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamy’s core institution and whom it should include. Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn’t just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.
The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.
Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in “ethical non-monogamy”— loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.
The push for non-monogamous marriage reveals some unexpected bedfellows: Everyone from former presidents to the remarried elderly couple next door. Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their ‘exclusive, dyadic relationships,’ producing a form of de facto polygamy. Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.
The rise of no-fault divorce has made “polygamy on the installment plan” more and more common for adults of all ages. Whether it’s de facto polygamy in the form of adultery, or serial polygamy with no-fault divorce, we as Americans have already broken the sanctity of the “couple.”
While some believe that plural marriage could lead to harm against women, regulation would protect them. And what about egalitarian polygamy, based on adult consent? Is it inherently abusive? Or more abusive than many “traditional” marriages based on patriarchal domination?
If the concern were third-party harms against children, why would these kids be any different than the thousands who already grow up with more than two parents in their lives? Forget stepparents, open-adoptions, extended familial networks, and other “classic” multi-parental settings. In cases of egg donors and surrogate mothers, courts have ruled that children can have three natural parents. Maybe more is even better; recent studies indicate that children in polyamorous households benefit from increased attention and diversity of role models.
Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.
Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.
Bravo!

And now the posts will roll in:

Rose_NoHo- "Polygamy is not an equal rights issue. It just isn't."

Big D- "You are not out in your wheelchair gathering signatures so you're not allowed to talk about polygamy. Which has no support anyway. Because polygamists are criminals using polygamy to commit their crimes."

Wait for all the dopey jackasses to hit you with the same dumb arguments used against SSM, Wait for them to fail to see the irony. You know the drill.
Politics of 501 c 4s

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192490
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

We got to bring back the orginal 1959 rules for 501(c)4.

The 501(c)(4) tax exemption was written for civic groups engaged in efforts to beautify a town, for example, or to build a stadium for a school, or to encourage interest in the arts - social-welfare effects that improve a community at large. Partisan politics should not be part of that picture.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192491
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it has, documented in dozens of species, a very normal natural occurrence in nature.
The problem here is that we are trying to talk to the uneducated. Ignorance in this day and age is a choice, and we can’t teach people that choose to be ignorant.
You are confusing SSSB in nature with homosexuality. One of many differences is scientists understand the purposes of much of SSSB in animals, but they don't know the purpose of homosexuality in humans.

You were saying something about ignorance?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192492
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure of mating behavior.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The INABILITY to create an offspring is a medical disorder.
The DECISION to not create an offspring is a PERSONAL CHOICE.
There's no evidence that homosexuality is a sexual disorder.
Your posts only prove one thing... Once a loser, always a loser.
I didn't say the failure of procreation, I said the failure of mating behavior.

Exemplified by the question;

Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian?

Your posts only prove one thing... Once a liar, always a liar.

Snicker.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192493
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Loving v. Virginia court case that legalized interracial marriage, the Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, argued for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.
He said, "[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage ... stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
----------
So we've heard all of this before--46 years ago.
Tell me, did interracial marriage lead to polygamy?
Didn't think so...
Come up with some new material.
Silly me.....of course calling an intimate personal sexual relationship between two men or two women marriage is a new unbreakable standard....the proverbial line in the sand. Almost time for "Sister Wives"....pull up a chair.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192494
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Loving v. Virginia court case that legalized interracial marriage, the Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, argued for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.
He said, "[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage ... stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
----------
So we've heard all of this before--46 years ago.
Tell me, did interracial marriage lead to polygamy?
Didn't think so...
Come up with some new material.
On second thought.....why do you care? The unspoken goal of the SSM movement is to break the monopoly that monogamous opposite couples have on legal marriage, is it not? Why should it matter what happens after that?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192495
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

“Truth has always had many loud proclaimers, but the question is whether a person will in the deepest sense acknowledge the truth, allow it to permeate his whole being, accept all its consequences, and not have an emergency hiding place for himself and a Judas kiss for the consequence.”

Soren Kierkegaard
501 c 4s politics

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192496
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

True Americans need to bring back the orginal 1959 rules for 501(c)4.

The 501(c)(4) tax exemption was written for civic groups engaged in efforts to beautify a town, for example, or to build a stadium for a school, or to encourage interest in the arts - social-welfare effects that improve a community at large. Partisan politics should not be part of that picture.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192497
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing SSSB in nature with homosexuality. One of many differences is scientists understand the purposes of much of SSSB in animals, but they don't know the purpose of homosexuality in humans.
You were saying something about ignorance?
Snicker.
So why don't you enlighten us... Why do animals engage in homosexual behavior?

Far be it from me to call you an outright liar (again), but a brief analysis of online studies indicates that no one really knows why animals engage in homosexual behavior.

Theories abound, but no one knows definitively.

The REAL question that needs to be asked is "Who cares?"

You keep looking for purposes and reasons.

Are you just trying to understand yourself better? Is that it?

It's common to want to know why you have feelings that you might find disturbing. Because if you know "why", then maybe you believe you can fix whatever is wrong.

Girl, here's the thing... At your ripe old age, it's too late. If you get a little rise in your skirt when you see some hot guy down at the Wal-Mart, it's not going to change at this point.

Stop asking why, already... It's time for you to take that next big step and just embrace that fact that homosexuality exists--for whatever reason.
Cancellation

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192498
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Planning Commission Regular Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:00 PM Notice of Cancellation Print PDF Agenda

Oversight Board Regular Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:00 PM Notice of Cancellation Print PDF Agenda

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192499
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
On second thought.....why do you care? The unspoken goal of the SSM movement is to break the monopoly that monogamous opposite couples have on legal marriage, is it not? Why should it matter what happens after that?
In either of the two cases argued before the Supreme Court--or in any other cases argued before any court--can you show me one shred of evidence; dialogue or transcripts, that would indicate that the goal of same-sex marriage is to end monogamy?

It doesn't exist because it has NEVER been a goal of our movement towards same-sex marriage.

We want THE SAME rights and protections of heterosexual couples--IDENTICAL rights.

NO ONE is arguing in favor of polygamy.

When will you people get that through your thick skulls?!?

If you guys could stop lying and stop trying to scare people, maybe we could find a solution that everyone agrees on.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192500
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly me.....of course calling an intimate personal sexual relationship between two men or two women marriage is a new unbreakable standard....the proverbial line in the sand. Almost time for "Sister Wives"....pull up a chair.
Gay marriage IS NOT NEW! History is replete with instances of same-sex marriage; even in the Christian church.

You act as though marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman. And it has not!

Polygamy, arranged marriages, ghost marriages, same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage; they're ALL a part of the history of mankind.

Besides, same-sex marriage is what our current cultures and societies are demanding NOW! Who gives a damn what happened in the past?!?

You want to go back to the days of slavery? You want to go back to the days of burning people at the stake? You want to go back to a time when people believe the Earth was the center of the Universe? Be my guest!

But we're talking about the PRESENT! We're talking about the rights of people TODAY--based on TODAY'S understanding of human sexuality, human rights, equality...

If you and a few other "slippery slope" idiots want to argue in favor of polygamy, be our guests. But DO NOT try to pin it on the same-sex marriage movement.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 168,021 - 168,040 of200,322
|
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

•••
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 ]
•••