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
168,761 - 168,780 of 200,366 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193312
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most polygamists"? Really? Where's your proof?
I did a brief bit of research to see if your claim holds water, and the only thing I could find where polygamists support same-sex marriage was an interview of the people portrayed on "Sister Wives".
They support same-sex marriage.
Are they representative of "most polygamists"?
Prove your comments. Show us where you get your "facts".
Prove they are not. You want to be a bigot, the burden is on you to justify your bigotry.

Marriage. There is no one right way.

How does it feel to argue against marriage equality? You're not doing a very good job of it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193313
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, as much as you continue to try to involve me in an effort that has no impact on my life; one that I do not personally endorse, I am not going to take the bait.
Same-sex marriage is important to me because I am a gay man. I see the damage caused by the efforts to block same-sex marriage.
That's why I fight for it. That's why I'm here on this particular TOPIX forum and not on a "polygamy forum".
I don't seek out issues that I do not endorse or support.
I've been crystal clear about my personal and professional feelings re: polygamy.
You believe that same-sex marriage and polygamy are one and the same. I don't agree.
Same-sex marriage intends to unite two people together. Polygamy does not.
If you want to believe that I'm being hypocritical, that's fine with me.
I personally don't believe that you're in favor of polygamy. Rather, you're trying to stir the pot by linking same-sex marriage to polygamy.
Good luck with that.
None of the arguments before the Supreme Court or other courts involving same-sex marriage have EVER included arguments for polygamy.
We have a very specific goal.
If you, personally, wish to have more than one wife with an extended group of children who have different mothers, then that's YOUR battle--not mine.

One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question is: why pairs? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? The response of gay marriage proponents is generally ridicule. I don't think this is a ridiculous question. "Why can't you marry your dog, then?" is a ridiculous question.

Marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons. But "why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?

There are, obviously, a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193314
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56063485-2...
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, as much as you continue to try to involve me in an effort that has no impact on my life; one that I do not personally endorse, I am not going to take the bait.
Same-sex marriage is important to me because I am a gay man. I see the damage caused by the efforts to block same-sex marriage.
That's why I fight for it. That's why I'm here on this particular TOPIX forum and not on a "polygamy forum".
I don't seek out issues that I do not endorse or support.
I've been crystal clear about my personal and professional feelings re: polygamy.
You believe that same-sex marriage and polygamy are one and the same. I don't agree.
Same-sex marriage intends to unite two people together. Polygamy does not.
If you want to believe that I'm being hypocritical, that's fine with me.
I personally don't believe that you're in favor of polygamy. Rather, you're trying to stir the pot by linking same-sex marriage to polygamy.
Good luck with that.
None of the arguments before the Supreme Court or other courts involving same-sex marriage have EVER included arguments for polygamy.
We have a very specific goal.
If you, personally, wish to have more than one wife with an extended group of children who have different mothers, then that's YOUR battle--not mine.
Justice brings up polygamy in Prop 8 gay marriage case

By Matt Canham | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Mar 26 2013 12:46 pm
Last Updated Mar 26 2013 07:22 pm

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193315
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question is: why pairs? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? The response of gay marriage proponents is generally ridicule. I don't think this is a ridiculous question. "Why can't you marry your dog, then?" is a ridiculous question.
Marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons. But "why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?
There are, obviously, a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.
Well put Frankie. If monogamous conjugal, husband and wife, marriage is no longer the foundation of a stable society in this country, why would it matter if SSM is legal AND plural marriage. Eventually will it matter who marries who legally as long as they're consenting adults. VeeVee, thoughts?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193316
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mob ile3/56063485-219/polygamy-mar riage-gay-court.html.csp
<quoted text>
Justice brings up polygamy in Prop 8 gay marriage case
By Matt Canham | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Mar 26 2013 12:46 pm
Last Updated Mar 26 2013 07:22 pm
The JUSTICE brought it up. Proponents of same-sex marriage have NEVER argued in favor of polygamy in any court cases involving same-sex marriage.

These are two, very distinct issues.
Orem

Durham, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193317
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question is: why pairs? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? The response of gay marriage proponents is generally ridicule. I don't think this is a ridiculous question. "Why can't you marry your dog, then?" is a ridiculous question.
Marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons. But "why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?
There are, obviously, a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.
Whoop Whoop

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193318
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question is: why pairs? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? The response of gay marriage proponents is generally ridicule. I don't think this is a ridiculous question. "Why can't you marry your dog, then?" is a ridiculous question.
Marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons. But "why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?
There are, obviously, a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.
The arguments placed before the courts by proponents of same-sex marriage have never included plural marriage.

Many people who fear same-sex marriage have used that tired, old refrain--"If we allow same-sex couples to marry, where will it end?"

THEY are the ones bringing up polygamy.

The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage ARE NOT an natural leap to arguments in favor of polygamy. They have NOTHING to do with one another, other than they both discuss marriage.

Polygamists would be more likely to use heterosexual marriage rights to defend their arguments in court. This is especially true with the Defense of Marriage Act, which clearly prohibits same-sex marriage as not being recognized by the federal government.

Opposite-sex couples already have the rights and protections of marriage. Polygamists would naturally use those rights and protections that are already in existence to argue their case.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193319
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Orem wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop Whoop
WOO~HOOOO! Whoop Whoop!
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193320
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You don't get it. Let's start with the basics. I'll take you through it step by step.
Is a man who molests only boys gay?
Dude, you should really take your problems to a medical proffesional like a PHD. Keeping these feelings within yourself can be dangerous. You are sicker than you know.
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193321
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are asking if a gay man can be a pedophile, then the answer is yes. But so can a straight man, a gay woman, and a straight woman.
From a psychiatric, medical, and legal perspective, there is no such thing as a "gay pedophile" or a "straight pedophile".
You'll never see someone charged with the crime "gay pedophilia" or "straight pedophilia".
You'll never see someone with the diagnosis of "gay pedophilia" or "straight pedophilia"
In each of these cases, there are only terms of "pedophilia" or "child sex abuse" or some other similar; non-sexual orientation specific term.
This Rizzoto dude is a sick puppy. I suggested he go see a medical proffesional with his inner thoughts about himself.
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193322
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
168,835 posts later, and not one good argument against gay marriage.
Aww go suck and egg
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193323
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The arguments placed before the courts by proponents of same-sex marriage have never included plural marriage.
Many people who fear same-sex marriage have used that tired, old refrain--"If we allow same-sex couples to marry, where will it end?"
THEY are the ones bringing up polygamy.
The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage ARE NOT an natural leap to arguments in favor of polygamy. They have NOTHING to do with one another, other than they both discuss marriage.
Polygamists would be more likely to use heterosexual marriage rights to defend their arguments in court. This is especially true with the Defense of Marriage Act, which clearly prohibits same-sex marriage as not being recognized by the federal government.
Opposite-sex couples already have the rights and protections of marriage. Polygamists would naturally use those rights and protections that are already in existence to argue their case.
The DOMA prevents polygamy equally to preventing same sex marriage. I know you don't like it that polygamy is equal to same sex marriage but that's your problem fruitcake.

You don't have the market cornered on discrimination, quit acting as if you do.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193324
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
This Rizzoto dude is a sick puppy. I suggested he go see a medical proffesional with his inner thoughts about himself.
Didn't work for you juicy fruits.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193325
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you should really take your problems to a medical proffesional like a PHD. Keeping these feelings within yourself can be dangerous. You are sicker than you know.
Didn't help you.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193326
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

On one thing I think we can all agree. That Bruno clown is a third rate jackass!

Am I right? Anyone disagree?

Too funny!
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193327
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

When all else fails, and it always will, invoke the "you're in the closet" meme.

Who knows, maybe it'll stick, just like the proverbial hooker's panties when she throws them against the wall.
meme generator

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193328
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

I went shopping for wallpaper last night, therefore your property values went up.
Orem

Durham, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193329
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

laughing man wrote:
When all else fails, and it always will, invoke the "you're in the closet" meme.
Who knows, maybe it'll stick, just like the proverbial hooker's panties when she throws them against the wall.
Whoop Whoop
meme generator

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193330
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pride parades save lives!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193331
May 26, 2013
 

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 ]
•••