Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,971

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
YeGotts

Covina, CA

#193547 May 27, 2013
Ye got to admit it, they really know how to kill there own kind.

More than 70 people were killed in a wave of bombings in markets in Shi'ite neighborhoods across Baghdad on Monday in worsening sectarian violence in Iraq.

Religion or no religion connection- what a great way to follow a religion.
lemmiwinks

Los Angeles, CA

#193550 May 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard it takes just one gay man to put it in but a whole emergency room team to get it out!
True!
Meg

Los Angeles, CA

#193551 May 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason men in my family never went to jail is because they were all cops! NYPD. 5 uncles. They'd take me to all the good bars when I was about 15. Whores for my birthdays! Woo-Hooo! Speeding 90 MPH the wrong way on a one way lights and sirens blaring to get to the next bar. That's how it was in those days. No mad mothers etc. Drinking age in NY was 18, but a mature looking 15 year old could drink in most any bar.
I guess having 5 uncles with disgraced records ( thats why they all worked the polce impound/tow beat ) take you to gay bars for pink fun is something to brag about...
NOT!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#193552 May 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment was created to address issues related to slavery--primarily making them citizens, NOT racial issues.
What history book are you reading?

I suggest you take a moment and educate yourself by reading the Congressional Debates over the drafting of the 14th Amendment before you go spouting off this uneducated nonsense.

Damn you are ignorant.
YeGotts

Covina, CA

#193553 May 27, 2013
Police in Dearborn are puzzled why a pressure cooker was left in the restroom of the Adoba Hotel, forcing the evacuation of Muslim guests until the early morning hours.

Gee what does that mean?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193554 May 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What history book are you reading?
I suggest you take a moment and educate yourself by reading the Congressional Debates over the drafting of the 14th Amendment before you go spouting off this uneducated nonsense.
Damn you are ignorant.
Oh please, Mr. Mason (or should I just call you Perry?)

I await your brilliant enlightenment.
Meg

Los Angeles, CA

#193560 May 27, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, shyte like that's always worth bragging about. My grandfather was Chief of Police in Cairo, Egypt, during WWII, and the stories my father had, of stuff he got away with......Stuff of life, is being privileged.. Taking out bridges at 9 yrs old, shooting the governors pigeons, oh, the tales...
Sorry to hear about your thumb, Rock. Take care.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193570 May 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What history book are you reading?
I suggest you take a moment and educate yourself by reading the Congressional Debates over the drafting of the 14th Amendment before you go spouting off this uneducated nonsense.
Damn you are ignorant.
(From Wikipedia, a reliable source)

The Reconstruction amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War.

The Amendments were important elements in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire male populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.

The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment,(proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This amendment did not include women. It took another amendment—the Nineteenth, ratified in 1920— to grant women the right to vote.

THESE AMENDMENTS WERE INTENDED TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO AFRICAN AMERICANS. The promise of these amendments was eroded by state laws and federal court decisions. The states passed Jim Crow laws that limited the rights of African-Americans. Important Supreme Court decisions that undermined these amendments were the Slaughter-House Cases(1873), which prevented rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause being extended to rights under state law; and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which gave federal approval to Jim Crow laws. The full benefits of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were not realized until Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education(1954) and laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

----------

Another interesting tidbit... "The 14th Amendment is cited in more court cases than any other, often in matters seeking to end discrimination against individuals based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and other statuses. Its long history of litigation traces the struggle for civil and legal rights for all Americans." (From NOLO.com )

----------

Now I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that what these two pieces are saying is that the 13, 14, and 15th amendments were initially intended for newly freed slaves, but it has been used multiple times throughout its history by various groups.
C files

Covina, CA

#193572 May 28, 2013
More (secret c-files) Catholic Church "sex Abuse Files" are being opened up this year 2013.

C-Files as they are known.
Buno

Westminster, CA

#193575 May 28, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I see how it is. You use the word "fear" to describe our feelings, and then, denounce the same word, when used in conjunction with your own stance. Got it. I believe that I've already pointed out the double standard, but you do not recognize it, because you think that it's YOUR game, and we are somehow different. We've ALWAYS had the rights that you seek, but, since time began, your way of doing things has encountered resistance. Except, of course, for a few old timey cultures that no longer, technically, exist. Up until now, your desires have been loosely tolerated, but not approved of. NOW, you have infiltrated, usurped and bribed all of the properly placed people to garner the decision. And you get uptight with us traditionalists that want to preserve some of the ways that have lasted us this long, and resulted in our presence here, today. We, that it to say, I and others that think the same way that I do, do nor believe in the "mix-n-match" policy for marriage that you do. And you trivialize our feelings, while demanding that we respect your, as if they are somehow morally superior to ours. No, sir, I am not "fu**ing" (have to edit, you have privileges that I do not) with you, I am making my case the same way that you are. AND, I am not coming unglued at some words that have been used on the internet, as you did, although, you make it sound so nice and respectable, and logical. Passionate? You have shown yourself, repeatedly, to be sensitive, angry and the way that you justify "getting in peoples faces" makes me think that you might have a history of violence. Our rights have been accorded for our relationships that are in accordance with nature, not because we wanted to shack up with "Bucky" or "Victor". Marriage is a serious business, sir, not something to use for personal gain. Your relationships provide for no offspring, and are, therefore, sterile by nature. For this, you wish to receive the same benefits as a struggling couple, and are willing to disparage those same couples in order to make them seem frivolous. "Heterosexual marriage are shot all to hell", or some such thing that you said, using statistics of failed marriages to validate your claims.
To be continued...
Gee you are really into this shit hugh. You are boring
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#193576 May 28, 2013
Good morning everyone

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193579 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Spot on old chap. Jolly good point.
moan and groan

Tempe, AZ

#193580 May 28, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them, but when they're done you'll be enlightened.
That was really really bad....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193582 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You know the idea would be harmful to your cause, so you desperately try to distance yourself.

But you also know that the dumbing down of marriage legally opens the door for a host of issues including polygamy.

All of this exposes denial, not disinterest.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193583 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard of marriage being comprised of TWO PEOPLE is supported by Same-sex marriage advocates.
At no point in any court argument made by proponents of same-sex marriage have we asked for marriage to include more than two people. We've not asked that marriage be allowed between adults and minors, humans and animals, humans and inanimate objects, etc.
One man, one woman; one man, one man; one woman, one woman... That's what we are supporting.
It is deceitful for you to imply that same-sex marriage proponents are in favor polygamy.
The ONLY reason marriage is restricted to two people is because of children. Dumbing down marriage by eliminating procreation removes that restriction.

You deny being aware of that. Simply a lie.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193584 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
SS couples have to equate before they can claim equal rights. They clearly don't.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193585 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
SS couples have to equate before they can claim equal rights. They clearly don't.
Nor do you, should we stop recognizing your marriage legally?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193586 May 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
No... The issue here is "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage".

That is the heading on this TOPIX forum.

There is nothing in the title of this forum that has to do with polygamy.

You have continued to try to make it an issue, yet no one is biting.

We do try to redirect you to the issue at hand, but like a blind man, you keep wandering away.

No matter how hard we try to keep you on topic, you keep going back to polygamy.

To that end, I have set you up a "polygamy forum" called "Frankie wants to discuss Polygamy". You can find it here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193587 May 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the idea would be harmful to your cause, so you desperately try to distance yourself.
But you also know that the dumbing down of marriage legally opens the door for a host of issues including polygamy.
All of this exposes denial, not disinterest.
The door to polygamy was opened when heterosexual couples began to marry one another. Many of you are happy to report that polygamy has been seen more commonly than same-sex marriage throughout history. So, YOU opened that door; not us.

To discuss polygamy further, please visit the new TOPIX forum created for this issue, "Frankie wants to discuss polygamy", found here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193590 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No... The issue here is "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage".
That is the heading on this TOPIX forum.
There is nothing in the title of this forum that has to do with polygamy.
You have continued to try to make it an issue, yet no one is biting.
We do try to redirect you to the issue at hand, but like a blind man, you keep wandering away.
No matter how hard we try to keep you on topic, you keep going back to polygamy.
To that end, I have set you up a "polygamy forum" called "Frankie wants to discuss Polygamy". You can find it here: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/start-la/TJ81...
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize polygamy, a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA


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.

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

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
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 53 min Go Blue Forever 2,272
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr Eric 69,387
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 13 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 18 hr Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Wed Blazing saddles 7,954
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
•••
•••

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 ]
•••