Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,191

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

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#192512 May 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Poly MARRIAGE deserves the SAME respect and consideration that same sex MARRIAGE does. You know, equal. They are both marriage. Your favorite one is not more worthy than anyone else's favorite one.
Marriage. There is no one right way.
What have you done to get polygamous marriages legalized besides flap your gums you old fool hater?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192513 May 17, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you done to get polygamous marriages legalized besides flap your gums you old fool hater?
I simply want to discuss marriage equality, young fool hater. I'm too old and disabled to change the world and you could be doing it if you weren't so angry. My activist days are over.

You are a hypocrite. And you are mad at me because I support poly marriage and you do not.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as SSM. Perhaps you disagree? Let's cut through your bullsh!t sonny.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192514 May 17, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you done to get polygamous marriages legalized besides flap your gums you old fool hater?
Actually flapping my gums has gotten at least one hater to realize poly deserves respect and consideration too. "Big D" started out vehemently against poly but now supports it. You can change too!
Lose the hate!

Marriage. There is no ONE right way!
Straight Sh00ter

Lawrence, KS

#192515 May 17, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you done to get polygamous marriages legalized besides flap your gums you old fool hater?
I like cheese.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192516 May 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://mobile.slate.com/articl es/double_x/doublex/2013/04/le galize_polygamy_marriage_equal ity_for_all.html
<quoted text>
You are arguing for the end of the single marital standard of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Are you not? Actually polygamy was mentioned during the proceedings.
<quoted text>
Then marry the same way and you'll get THE SAME rights. Quite logical. But that is not what you seek.
<quoted text>
Oh but they are.
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet
<quoted text>
Civil union
The author of this OPINION post in Slate Magazine is Jillian Keenan--a heterosexual woman who studied Shakespeare at Stanford. She is a freelance writer. She IS NOT an attorney. She DID NOT argue any of the cases supporting same-sex marriage before ANY court.

She DOES NOT speak for the gay community. She speaks for HERSELF and for anyone foolish enough to support her idiotic nonsense.

You claimed that gay people who seek same-sex marriage want to end monogamy between heterosexual couples. And you HAVE NOT proven this to be the case.

You continue to try to scare people into believing that gays want to destroy families.

If you are a Christian person, you REALLY should know better than to outright lie.

If you want to take apart same-sex marriage point by point, then do so truthfully. When you resort to lying, then you have lost credibility in this discussion.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192517 May 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Replete"? Scattered.....in different places not sustained..nor cross cultural.
<quoted text>
Not Boswell's work which has been refuted.
<quoted text>
The one cross cultural cross time composition, male female.
<quoted text>
That demand is not as extensive as u imply. Even in the gay community its not the big seller u indicate. Plus more female couples marry than male.
<quoted text>
Seriously VeeVee? All that to argue that monogamous conjugal marriage should not be the sole legal definition. You're smarter than that.
<quoted text>
Different situation, different solution, civil union.
<quoted text>
Why not? If not for SSM, polygamy wouldn't have a precedent. Even SSMers can see this. Again, why does it matter, if monogamous conjugal marriage is no longer the sole definition?
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.

2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.

3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.

4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192518 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The author of this OPINION post in Slate Magazine is Jillian Keenan--a heterosexual woman who studied Shakespeare at Stanford. She is a freelance writer. She IS NOT an attorney. She DID NOT argue any of the cases supporting same-sex marriage before ANY court.
I never said she was an attorney, rather someone who supports SSM and recognizes marriage equality extends to polygamists.
She DOES NOT speak for the gay community. She speaks for HERSELF and for anyone foolish enough to support her idiotic nonsense.
What idiotic nonsense? The notion that marriage equality is not limited to SSM?
You claimed that gay people who seek same-sex marriage want to end monogamy between heterosexual couples. And you HAVE NOT proven this to be the case.
Noooooo.....I state a fact. Gay people, some, wish to eliminate the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife.
You continue to try to scare people into believing that gays want to destroy families.
Why do some gays not want polygamist families to receive legal recognition?
If you are a Christian person, you REALLY should know better than to outright lie.
Reread my post, no "outright lies", that is an outright lie.
If you want to take apart same-sex marriage point by point, then do so truthfully. When you resort to lying, then you have lost credibility in this discussion.
As do u. Why does it matter if the legal definition of husband and wife no longer matters, that further changes/redefinitions are made?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192519 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A gay twirl lip wristed hissy fit with a serious comprehension deficit.

I didn't say animals engaged in homosexual behavior. I said scientists term it SSSB, because most often it is not based on sexual orientation.

Why homosexuality exists is important because that knowledge is required to term it normal or abnormal. Something you already claim to know...

Hence the article I posted that noted the lack of an answer stumped scientists, because it has remained unanswered for so long. Unless you accept the fact that it is an aberration of nature. A defect. A dead end mutation.

As a near senile old jack ass, even I can understand this. And you, the hulking queen continues to rule the kingdom of Denial.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192520 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Fact; Sterile, duplicated ss couples do not equate to marriage.

Solution; Establish your own relational identity and acquire your own rights.

See how simple that was?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192521 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage IS NOT NEW! History is replete with instances of same-sex marriage; even in the Christian church.
A lie.

If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become a truth?

Life in the kingdom of Denial under Queen VV.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192522 May 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure of mating behavior.
Smile.
<quoted text>
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.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh!!! Everybody sit down and pay close attention to Kimare. SHHHH!!!
He's come up with a BRAND NEW scientific concept!!!
Now there will be an entire science dedicated to nothing but "the failure of mating behavior" in human beings!!(!!trumpets blaring!!)
NEVER in my WILDEST dreams did I think I would see such BRILLIANCE!!
Wait... I did see such brilliance once before. In fact, it was about an hour ago when I went "number two" in the toilet.
Terminal comprehension deficit from the Queen of Denial complaining about an abused sphincter muscle.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192523 May 18, 2013
sheesh wrote:
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-gender couples who adopt children undergo extreme scrutiny--more scrutiny, I'll bet, than opposite-gender couples. The love, support, discipline, and nurturing these kids receive are far superior to the environments they came from.
And I'd be willing to guarantee that many of these kids live in a happier, more stable home environment than you provided your own kids; what with whipping them from state to state, running from your own self-created demons.
You have said several times that you were victimized by a an insane person. That's why you left Hawaii. But I know that it takes two to play any game. You put your family through hell. You put your own wants and desires before their interests.
What a joke...
<quoted text>
Hogwash, child. I haven't read much for the last few days, however, if you've mentioned that you relocated your children from one place to another there is no slander in mentioning just how stressful relocations are for a child. You claim victimization by an insane person and VV mentions the one sided nature of your claim. In spite of your protest, it DOES take two to tango. You immersed yourself in a relationship with someone you claim was insane. Then you fled at your children's expense (relocation is stressful) yet you've got the nerve to blather on about gays providing less than desirable family environments for children. Quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black on your part. And a bit of cry baby for attempting to call common sense slander. WhassamattahU, can't take it but can dish it out? 8485
The problem isn't that you don't read much, it is that you don't comprehend much.

That coupled with your hatred and bigotry would give my crazy person a run for his money...

Bazinga!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192526 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
Where is the historical evidence that societies around the globe, across time and place, recognized same sex marriage? There are a few examples, but clearly no indication this was cross cultural cross time practice.Certainly not in Western Civilization.
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
Of course not all of history was recorded. But with no evidence at all, its speculation, plausible or not.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
A disgrace as well. A world treasure destroyed.
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
Perhaps, but you raise a good point. Not all recognized ss unions were considered marriage.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term.
I'm not disagreeing.
The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
Show me the money.... Point to any historical record of a sustained movement to have ss relationships recognized in any form, let alone as marriage.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
[/QUOTE[
Religious brother bonding ceremonies.
[QUOTE]
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
Scattered historical examples only.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
"Conjugal", as in "husband and wife".
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
Agreed, we fumbled the ball.....so to speak. Screwed up.
Crazy Chicken

Covina, CA

#192527 May 18, 2013
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley Boy Scouts leaders and supporters gathered at 2333 Scout Way in Los Angeles May 18, 2013 Friday to protest the potential rule change that allows gays etc. to join the BSA.

Douglas Boyd of Glendora, California said that scouting could be “destroyed” with the inclusion of gays and could drive away most of its members by the droves.

Please send someone over and check Boyd's closet there might be evidence in there.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192528 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192529 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
Opposite sex marriage has led to same sex marriage. The slippery slope is real. You cannot wish it away by lying. Deal with it honestly and intelligently. It's easy!

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192530 May 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay twirl lip wristed hissy fit with a serious comprehension deficit.
I didn't say animals engaged in homosexual behavior. I said scientists term it SSSB, because most often it is not based on sexual orientation.
Why homosexuality exists is important because that knowledge is required to term it normal or abnormal. Something you already claim to know...
Hence the article I posted that noted the lack of an answer stumped scientists, because it has remained unanswered for so long. Unless you accept the fact that it is an aberration of nature. A defect. A dead end mutation.
As a near senile old jack ass, even I can understand this. And you, the hulking queen continues to rule the kingdom of Denial.
Smile.
Oh please, Mary, I recognized your attempts to separate SSSB in animals from "homosexual" behavior in animals.

I did it to get your goat, you old goat.

You don't need to know the purpose of something in order to know if it is normal or abnormal. It exists in nature--it is normal.

Preferences and attractions have purpose--otherwise they would not exist.

Even certain types of murder have purpose. The over 300,000 direct war deaths in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan wars served some purpose in some (twisted) people's opinions.

Fortunately, the purpose of homosexuality cannot be related to something as brutal as war. Homosexuality results in a harmless attraction of one person to another person of the same gender.

Scientists have determined that homosexuality is a normal expression of attraction. It does not negatively impact society at large.

You can keep looking for a "purpose" or "function" of homosexuality. But you CANNOT call it abnormal simply because you do not understand the reasons that people are gay.

To do so continues to highlight the FACT that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the scientific method and science in general.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192532 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
From your article...

"Legal action A might not be that bad, for instance because giving same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn’t hurt anyone else. But taking 'action A' will increase the likelihood of legal 'action B', which would be worse—from the perspective of some observers—because it would interfere with the free choice of people or groups who oppose homosexuality."

----------

Exchange the words "giving same-sex couples marriage licenses" with the words "giving African Americans equal rights". Also exchange the words "groups who opposed homosexuality" with the words "groups who oppose equal rights for blacks".

Exchange these same sets of words with "giving women the rights to vote and own property" and "groups who oppose equal rights for women".

Certainly even you can see that refusing to give rights to minorities based on other's rights to oppose certain minorities, sets up a disastrous situation.

Everybody has the right to dislike others based on their own personal belief system. However, folks don't have the right to enforce laws based on those rights--especially when the minority group has NO ILL EFFECTS on greater society.

"Ill effects" or "damaging effects" are the only reasons that societies should be able to oppose certain groups.

Simply "not liking" a particular group is not an adequate reason for puffing unequal and discriminatory laws into place.

The KKK and White Power organizations can exists all they want. But in this country, their opinions about racial, religious, and sexual minorities ARE NOT a basis on which to create discriminatory laws.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192533 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The author of this OPINION post in Slate Magazine is Jillian Keenan--a heterosexual woman who studied Shakespeare at Stanford. She is a freelance writer. She IS NOT an attorney. She DID NOT argue any of the cases supporting same-sex marriage before ANY court.
She DOES NOT speak for the gay community. She speaks for HERSELF and for anyone foolish enough to support her idiotic nonsense.
You claimed that gay people who seek same-sex marriage want to end monogamy between heterosexual couples. And you HAVE NOT proven this to be the case.
You continue to try to scare people into believing that gays want to destroy families.
If you are a Christian person, you REALLY should know better than to outright lie.
If you want to take apart same-sex marriage point by point, then do so truthfully. When you resort to lying, then you have lost credibility in this discussion.
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.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#192534 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.
The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".
the difference being my links will take you to scientific studies whereas your links will be to the ramblings of people like Mann Coulter, Sean Hannnity, Glen Beck etcc

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 8 hr scirocco 70,102
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep '14 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep '14 fancy 3
Monterey Dating
Find my Match

Monterey Jobs

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 ]