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 (Page 8,561)

Showing posts 171,201 - 171,220 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196426
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Hey if you wan't to marry your sisters, OK by me. Have at it, let it in, go with it, do it sunshine.
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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196427
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I know, hey let him post. we don't have to answer
It's not that you don't have to answer, it's that you can't.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196428
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m not angry at anyone, wanted to see if you would lie and you didn’t disappoint
so you are saying you have never said "off Topic" when someone was talking about religion and their influence opposed to same sex marriage?
I don’t need to look it up, everyone here knows you are lying, I don’t care if you do or not.:D
You are like a puppet, pull this string and you dance.
I'm not going to entertain your liar straw man. Either give me good reasons poly and incest marriage shouldn't be allowed or stop lying. Preferably both.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196429
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are under the wrong assumption that anyone cares what you think. I was making a comment to someone else, not you
For someone who says they don't care about what I think, you sure care about what I think! And my posts elicit spirited, albeit dumb and angry responses from you. Funny that.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196430
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Damn Rizzo Whizzo still flapping about anything but the TOPIC...go figure. Samesh!t different day. Later.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196431
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah he gets really mentally constipated when you don’t answer too :)
The Supreme Court did the AZ voting law decision today, I think they are clearing the books and will wait until the end to do DOMA and I suspect Prop 8 last, not sure if it will be this week or next.
Although to me, I think DOMA is really the more important one in the long term, Federal recognition is on the table with that one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/w...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196432
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Imprtnrd wrote:
Damn Rizzo Whizzo still flapping about anything but the TOPIC...go figure. Samesh!t different day. Later.
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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196433
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He wants to talk about poly and incest, he doesn’t want to talk about same sex marriage, the religious and bigotry involved in the case or anything else that actually is related to Prop 8. He certainly does not want to talk about the overturn of Prop 8 itself.
Poly and incest are his only interests, he will censor anyone trying to talk about any aspect of Prop 8 that is not about poly or incest ( which of course have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8 )
Someone created a poly thread for him, but he doesn’t post there, as his obsession is to derail same sex marriage topics.
He will attempt to censor anyone discussing the religious influence against same sex marriage or any other aspect that does not have to do with either Poly on Incest
His censorship speaks volumes about his motives.
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56282277-2...

While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamy's core institution and whom it should include. 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.

The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.

Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

The push for non-monogamous marriage reveals some unexpected bedfellows: Everyone from former presidents to the remarried elderly couple next door. Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their 'exclusive, dyadic relationships,' producing a form of de facto polygamy. Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.

The rise of no-fault divorce has made "polygamy on the installment plan" more and more common for adults of all ages. Whether it's de facto polygamy in the form of adultery, or serial polygamy with no-fault divorce, we as Americans have already broken the sanctity of the "couple."
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196434
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.
There it is, he will try to censor anything that is not what he wants to talk about.:)

Best bet.. Ignore the loser
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196435
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196437
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56282277-2...
While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamy's core institution and whom it should include. 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.
The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.
Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.
The push for non-monogamous marriage reveals some unexpected bedfellows: Everyone from former presidents to the remarried elderly couple next door. Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their 'exclusive, dyadic relationships,' producing a form of de facto polygamy. Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.
The rise of no-fault divorce has made "polygamy on the installment plan" more and more common for adults of all ages. Whether it's de facto polygamy in the form of adultery, or serial polygamy with no-fault divorce, we as Americans have already broken the sanctity of the "couple."
Bravo!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196438
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196439
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196440
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196441
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196442
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196443
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196444
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196445
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196446
Jun 17, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 171,201 - 171,220 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••