Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196438 Jun 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There it is, he will try to censor anything that is not what he wants to talk about.:)
Best bet.. Ignore the loser
Too funny! He was insulting me. Relax Big D. Try chanting.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196439 Jun 17, 2013
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”

In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.

The Court has said, he contended, that polygamy raises “questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody” and therefore “is an entirely different thing” than same-sex marriage. Moreover, Olson argued, when a “state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct,” but if “it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.”

Justice Sotomayor’s concerns about the possibility of a path from same-sex marriage to polygamy may arise from the fact that there is already a case in federal court challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law as unconstitutional.  In any event, she should be just as concerned about this question after oral argument as she was before it, because none of Olson’s distinctions can reasonably justify a prohibition on polygamy if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To see why, it’s first useful to note a crucial distinction that Olson overlooked, as well as the most famous Supreme Court case regarding polygamy, which he failed to mention.

Olson’s words to the Court suggest that the state somehow “forbids” same-sex marriage today just as it “forbids” polygamy. This is not true, as Adam MacLeod noted on Public Discourse earlier this week. Under current law and Supreme Court precedent, no state has constitutional authority to punish anyone for entering into a same-sex relationship. No state in fact “prohibits” same-sex marriage. If any persons wish to enter into such a relationship and call it a marriage, they are perfectly free to do so.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196440 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny! He was insulting me. Relax Big D. Try chanting.
Oh I am relaxed, I just enjoy pointing out your constant lying &#61514;

Complain about censorship of others more.. it is really funny
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196441 Jun 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/04/9725/
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”
In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.
The Court has said, he contended, that polygamy raises “questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody” and therefore “is an entirely different thing” than same-sex marriage. Moreover, Olson argued, when a “state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct,” but if “it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.”
Justice Sotomayor’s concerns about the possibility of a path from same-sex marriage to polygamy may arise from the fact that there is already a case in federal court challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law as unconstitutional.  In any event, she should be just as concerned about this question after oral argument as she was before it, because none of Olson’s distinctions can reasonably justify a prohibition on polygamy if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To see why, it’s first useful to note a crucial distinction that Olson overlooked, as well as the most famous Supreme Court case regarding polygamy, which he failed to mention.
Olson’s words to the Court suggest that the state somehow “forbids” same-sex marriage today just as it “forbids” polygamy. This is not true, as Adam MacLeod noted on Public Discourse earlier this week. Under current law and Supreme Court precedent, no state has constitutional authority to punish anyone for entering into a same-sex relationship. No state in fact “prohibits” same-sex marriage. If any persons wish to enter into such a relationship and call it a marriage, they are perfectly free to do so.
It is truly a tough one for SCOTUS. I don't envy them.

Of course Big D thinks it's easy and they're gonna "trash" people and make "toast" out of laws, and do spiteful things and make belittling jokes against other Americans.

ha ha old people don't procreate too funny. She really trashed them and made them toast ha ha bla bla bla. That dopey stuff.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196442 Jun 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I am relaxed, I just enjoy pointing out your constant lying &#61514;
Complain about censorship of others more.. it is really funny
Responding to insults against me by a troll is not censorship.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#196443 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're off topic. I understand that you have no argument, but better to remain silent until you get one rather than just post dumb nonsense like that and prove you have no argument.
Tell me your argument for being against marriage equality. Don't just troll.
Rizzo.....After the ruling I will have no need to come to this thread. You can ramble on about ANYTHING you want to! Have fun.=)
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196444 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said. Ridicule. It's like me saying hey if you wanna marry your boyfriend it's OK by me.
Why if I said that it would be hateful bigotry but when you say it it's not? Because you are a hypocrite.
If you want to marr your boyfriend, again great. I think you two should. I am glad to see that you see the problem.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196445 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Responding to insults against me by a troll is not censorship.
Hey Flunkie are you going to talk about Poly marriage or not?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196446 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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.
Excerpt from Pietro's link for all the clowns that scream at me when I mention this simple fact. Big D especially.
Relax, take it easy, put your feet up, have a beer. Now why are you so upset?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196447 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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.
Excerpt from Pietro's link for all the clowns that scream at me when I mention this simple fact. Big D especially.
Take a chill pill. Why are you so mad? Hey post about Poly. I am still waiting.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196448 Jun 17, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Rizzo.....After the ruling I will have no need to come to this thread. You can ramble on about ANYTHING you want to! Have fun.=)
As you may have noticed, I don't need your permission. Thanks for playing. Even though you have no argument you gave it your best shot! But failed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196449 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Take a chill pill. Why are you so mad? Hey post about Poly. I am still waiting.
WOW! The old "why you mad" schtick, that might work. g

Getting even pretty desperate eh Jiz? What a loser.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196450 Jun 17, 2013
I find it difficult to see Jizzy's 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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196451 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Relax, take it easy, put your feet up, have a beer. Now why are you so upset?
If I got any more relaxed, I'd turn to rubber. How about yourself? You seem upset.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196452 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to marr your boyfriend, again great. I think you two should. I am glad to see that you see the problem.
Moron says what?

Here comes the homophobia. Nice!
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196453 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW! The old "why you mad" schtick, that might work. g
Getting even pretty desperate eh Jiz? What a loser.
Frank, calm down. Put your special helmit on and STOP licking the windows.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196454 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Flunkie are you going to talk about Poly marriage or not?
Yes. I have been. Despite your trolling. We'll tell you about it all tomorrow when you sober up.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196455 Jun 17, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.

Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196456 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see Jizzy's 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.
Frankie, I just don't see why we should change existing laws for the sake of one religion. If we do that then the flood doors will open. 1797 different religions, sects and tree worshipers wanting different terms. Nope let that one be.

Its all in the Constitution, if you care to read.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196457 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Moron says what?
Here comes the homophobia. Nice!
I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?

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
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 19 rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr 2 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar '15 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar '15 Gary 16
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]