Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,795

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.

Read more

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193378 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that really different from what I wrote:
"That goal is the elimination of monogamous conjugal, as in husband and wife, sole legal definition and/or standard { of marriage} in this country."
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhkay.
<quoted text>
No one is seriously proposing marriage involving minors, or animals. So let's dispense with that.
<quoted text>
Again, the elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband AND wife. The essence of what I stated the goal of the movement is.
<quoted text>
No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife.
Once that is done, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who, as long as its between consenting adults?
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.

You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."

You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you? And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.

We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners. So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".

For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.

Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.

You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.

It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness. You want it to be an exclusive club.

You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.

Shallow... Very shallow...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193380 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mob ile3/56282277-219/marriage-plu ral-polygamy-court.html.csp
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.
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.
OK, so you dislike polygamy. You don't want groups of people marrying one another.

But stop blaming the LGBT community for what "might" happen.

Did we reject civil rights because of what "might" happen? No, we passed civil rights measures because it was the right thing to do. Has it been easy? No! Have there been problems with civil rights? Yes! But you DO NOT deny people human rights simply because you are afraid of what MIGHT happen or that there MIGHT be difficulties in the transition.
Blasters

Covina, CA

#193391 May 26, 2013
Time to blast them all, Bob Dole Blasts Fellow Republicans.

Is it true that they have lost their way?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193392 May 26, 2013
Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you wish to have more than one wife? Do you have one now? I have noticed that you call people stupid all the time. Why do you do that? Is it because they don't agree with you? If thats the reason, may be its your ideas. Think about it for a while.
No, that's not it. It's because you really are stupid. Think about it for a while.

Alright beer bottle! Hope that helped. Remember, there are no stupid posts only stupid posters such as yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193394 May 26, 2013
Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you like gay people? Has something happened to you? Are you a Catholic? Was it a Preist. I hope you know that a Pedophile is not gay. Ask Jesus for help.
Yes. We know that male pedophiles who molest boys are not gay. We've read the rainbow handbook.

So for example if Jerry Sandusky was raping a boy in the shower ("horsing around") Jerry is not gay, but if the boy turned 18 before Jerry came, Then Jerry would turn gay at that moment.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193395 May 26, 2013
Orem wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop Whoop
WOOO~HOOOOO!! Whoop! Whoop!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193396 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you? And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners. So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness. You want it to be an exclusive club.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
There you go again. Why do you fear polygamy or think anyone else does?
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#193398 May 26, 2013
All of a sudden there's been a spike in smilie mashing, which can only mean that Rosie has ended her shift at the Offal House.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193399 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fear". That's that pesky little, double-sided word that you use, to marginalize our feelings against SSM, but not to be used against your "reasonably expressed" opinion that you cannot "endorse" polygamy. Right? We fear, but you do not. Did I get that right?
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T

VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193400 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
VV is arguing against marriage equality for poly using the same arguments he ridicules when used against SSM. Classic hypocrite.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

#193401 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you mind, awfully, describing how the re-definition of marriage is "right for America"? I'm going to need to hear some actual reasons for this grievous lie, and, perhaps, you can provide some actual benefits that ALL of us are going to receive?
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

#193402 May 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T
VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
You are another stupid fool. I bet your family is quite embarassed by you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193403 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you?
Yesssssss......mono is not poly.
And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
But you are trying to eliminate the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a union of Husband and wile.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners.
So then marry someone of the opposite sex and then you'll get the "same rights and protections". In reality what you're asking the state to do is declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
Thus achieving the goal that you seek.
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
We fear the continued devaluation of marriage through its redefinition, and the possible long term consequences of that.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
No, polygamy won't rush in, it'll slip in on the wake of SSM. Why that would bother you, baffles me?
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness.
No, more of a concern for society as a whole, and for the next generation.
You want it to be an exclusive club.
As do you, you want to exclude polygamists from it.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
Its not allowing them to marry, but changing the definition do they can marry. But, I'll ask anyway. What specific improvements do you speak of? Can they not be effected by a Civil Union structure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193408 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post, Paisan.
Grazie....nice slogan "Daddies back". I've been posting from the mobile site, so I didn't see it before now. I like it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193409 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
Ya know....."can of worms" is an apt metaphor. Yeahhhhh.....why do the SSMers suddenly get the authority to decides who gets the marriage tag, and who doesn't after they get theirs.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193410 May 26, 2013
Alex Love wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
You sound like a man of experience, but most other men don't swallow man loads like you so no need to worry about us power trooper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193412 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I see his point perfectly. He believes in the "Double Standard", and embraces it, to his bosom, but denies this same tit to the others in the pack. We that are against SSM "fear" what his side brings to the table, but he does not "fear" polygamy, he is intellectually able to deduce the invalid nature of anothers marital choice, and to keenly discern the difference between the ability of his kind having a choice, and the other side, not being worthy to exercise the same choice. Frankly, I'm surprised that Super D, that ever-gushing vestibule of moral correctness, hasn't stepped in, to chide his brother for his bias. I'm greatly disappointed to not bear witness to the quick, phone-booth metamorphosis of the D into the manifestation of America's Majesty, and to jump in, shouting "I'll not stand by, while injustice is being served", but, there I am, witnessing the bias, that has been declared to be non-existent, again rearing its ugly head.
Against SSM = Fear.
Against Polygamy = Intellectually Righteous.
LMAO!

Ever notice Big D only posts during the hours the library is open?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193415 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure rot, my good ma....anyway. Pure rot. Heterosexuality would rule out polygamy, because, as soon as a third spouse is introduced, one or the other marital member would make it a SSM type of marriage. See my point? It takes your argument to pave the way for your ignored brothers and sisters. 1 man and 1 woman would rule out polygamy. 2 of the same gender being allowed to marry would allow for mixed couples.
Are you mad? Polygamy doesn't work that way. They don't all sleep in the same bed.

Heck, it's not uncommon for polygamist marriages to have the wives living in different houses.

It's not straight man with a group of lesbians in tow.(even though that seems to be so many straight men's fantasy)

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193417 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
First, don't take that tone with me.

Second, the standard of marriage HAS NOT always been 1 man, 1 woman. Read some history once in a while.

Finally, you think that the majority of people ALWAYS make the right decision? Ever hear of mob mentality? Ever hear of slavery? Ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? Ever hear of the "Moral Majority"? "THE MAJORITY" has gotten it wrong MANY times! Frankly, I don't give a DAMN what the majority thinks.

You don't get to vote on rights and protections that impact me without a fight!
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193419 May 26, 2013
Another crooked COP, oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.

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
where can I find heroin in monterey? Mar 27 Rosiedosie 7
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Mar 26 scirocco 71,697
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar 24 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar 20 Gary 16
Review: Salazar Auto Repair (Sep '13) Mar 10 fed up 3
News Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) Mar 5 Carlos Slim 14
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Mar 3 Joe Balls 1,530
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 ]