Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,163

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
OutVoted

Covina, CA

#192745 May 20, 2013
Loser's are still posting here with there stupid views.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192746 May 20, 2013
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/is-g...

Is Gay Marriage Actually Different than Polygamy?
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 30, 2013

The obvious question about transforming marriage to mean two men, is why draw the line at two? If we’re going to deconstruct the definition of marriage from a union between a biological couple to a union between anyone, why stop at two?

Ted Olson’s Supreme Court argument in this regard is supremely unconvincing.

“Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said.“And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.

“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.

Patriarchy issues? Really.

Is Ted Olson seriously claiming that polygamy can be banned by states because of the patriarchy? Child custody is downright silly. If child custody cases can be worked out between two men or two women in a system that generally favors women, they can be worked out between a polygamous family, since unlike the gay setup, there is an actual biological father and biological mother, making custody relatively easier to decide on.

Abuses is even sillier. If we’re going with the premise that anything consenting adults do is legal, why is homosexuality a civil rights issue while polygamy is a crime?

Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status. This is obviously a myth. Both are conduct. No one has to marry. They choose to marry. Even for those who wrongly claim that homosexuality is genetic, that extends to sexual acts, not to marriage.

If the premise of the so-called marriage equality push is that non-traditional forms of marriage are a civil rights issue, then why make the distinction?

Arguing that homosexual marriage is a fundamental rights but polygamous marriage isn’t has nothing to do with biology. They are both forms of conduct.

If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families.

The real issue here is that it is being asserted that one form of non-traditional family is legitimate and the other isn’t based on some mixture of social values and personal taste. And the entire gay rights movement is nothing if not a rejection of social values and taste.

Olson is forced to make ridiculously convoluted arguments to defend the contradiction. And those same arguments apply to homosexuality. Fears of abuse? Custody issues? Social disapproval? All of those are on the table.

Either we adhere to a rational fixed notion of marriage or we reject the notion altogether. There is no rational reason for some random middle ground based on the money and influence of a small group trying to legalize its own sexual fetish for its own purposes.

We can either have defined marriage or completely undefined marriage. What gay rights activists cannot do is demand an expansion that only covers their special case.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192747 May 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/d greenfield/is-gay-marriage-act ually-different-than-polygamy/ print/
Is Gay Marriage Actually Different than Polygamy?
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 30, 2013
The obvious question about transforming marriage to mean two men, is why draw the line at two? If we’re going to deconstruct the definition of marriage from a union between a biological couple to a union between anyone, why stop at two?
Ted Olson’s Supreme Court argument in this regard is supremely unconvincing.
“Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said.“And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.
“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.
Patriarchy issues? Really.
Is Ted Olson seriously claiming that polygamy can be banned by states because of the patriarchy? Child custody is downright silly. If child custody cases can be worked out between two men or two women in a system that generally favors women, they can be worked out between a polygamous family, since unlike the gay setup, there is an actual biological father and biological mother, making custody relatively easier to decide on.
Abuses is even sillier. If we’re going with the premise that anything consenting adults do is legal, why is homosexuality a civil rights issue while polygamy is a crime?
Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status. This is obviously a myth. Both are conduct. No one has to marry. They choose to marry. Even for those who wrongly claim that homosexuality is genetic, that extends to sexual acts, not to marriage.
If the premise of the so-called marriage equality push is that non-traditional forms of marriage are a civil rights issue, then why make the distinction?
Arguing that homosexual marriage is a fundamental rights but polygamous marriage isn’t has nothing to do with biology. They are both forms of conduct.
If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families.
The real issue here is that it is being asserted that one form of non-traditional family is legitimate and the other isn’t based on some mixture of social values and personal taste. And the entire gay rights movement is nothing if not a rejection of social values and taste.
Olson is forced to make ridiculously convoluted arguments to defend the contradiction. And those same arguments apply to homosexuality. Fears of abuse? Custody issues? Social disapproval? All of those are on the table.
Either we adhere to a rational fixed notion of marriage or we reject the notion altogether. There is no rational reason for some random middle ground based on the money and influence of a small group trying to legalize its own sexual fetish for its own purposes.
We can either have defined marriage or completely undefined marriage. What gay rights activists cannot do is demand an expansion that only covers their special case.
The reason polygamy is illegal is because the Supreme Court doesn't like it.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192748 May 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/d greenfield/is-gay-marriage-act ually-different-than-polygamy/ print/
Is Gay Marriage Actually Different than Polygamy?
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 30, 2013
The obvious question about transforming marriage to mean two men, is why draw the line at two? If we’re going to deconstruct the definition of marriage from a union between a biological couple to a union between anyone, why stop at two?
Ted Olson’s Supreme Court argument in this regard is supremely unconvincing.
“Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said.“And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.
“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.
Patriarchy issues? Really.
Is Ted Olson seriously claiming that polygamy can be banned by states because of the patriarchy? Child custody is downright silly. If child custody cases can be worked out between two men or two women in a system that generally favors women, they can be worked out between a polygamous family, since unlike the gay setup, there is an actual biological father and biological mother, making custody relatively easier to decide on.
Abuses is even sillier. If we’re going with the premise that anything consenting adults do is legal, why is homosexuality a civil rights issue while polygamy is a crime?
Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status. This is obviously a myth. Both are conduct. No one has to marry. They choose to marry. Even for those who wrongly claim that homosexuality is genetic, that extends to sexual acts, not to marriage.
If the premise of the so-called marriage equality push is that non-traditional forms of marriage are a civil rights issue, then why make the distinction?
Arguing that homosexual marriage is a fundamental rights but polygamous marriage isn’t has nothing to do with biology. They are both forms of conduct.
If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families.
The real issue here is that it is being asserted that one form of non-traditional family is legitimate and the other isn’t based on some mixture of social values and personal taste. And the entire gay rights movement is nothing if not a rejection of social values and taste.
Olson is forced to make ridiculously convoluted arguments to defend the contradiction. And those same arguments apply to homosexuality. Fears of abuse? Custody issues? Social disapproval? All of those are on the table.
Either we adhere to a rational fixed notion of marriage or we reject the notion altogether. There is no rational reason for some random middle ground based on the money and influence of a small group trying to legalize its own sexual fetish for its own purposes.
We can either have defined marriage or completely undefined marriage. What gay rights activists cannot do is demand an expansion that only covers their special case.
Polygamy is the elephant in the rainbow room.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192750 May 20, 2013
There are perfectly good laws against all the crimes that ignorant bigots erroneously fear polygamists are guilty of.

If legalized, polygamy will continue to be so rare that most people will never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family. And how are you going to know they are married anyway?

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideratipn as same sex marriage.

Polygamy hurts no one, especially not your dumbass.

Alright! Heap on the hate! Big D? Any comments? Jizzy, some input?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192751 May 20, 2013
Marriage. There is no one right way.

Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy as much as it does against SSM.(disclaimer for the "off topic!!" whiners.)

"OFF TOPIC!!!" with screaming and stomping of feet is not an argument.

Thank you for your time. Please shout your insults now.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192752 May 20, 2013
laughing man wrote:
You can almost smell the enraged tuna as Rosie furiously mashes the smilies.
Rose_NoHo boycotts me. She used to post to me "I hate you". Then she got so frustrated it was a boycott. Then she couldn't stand it anymore and broke her promise to never respond to me again and posted her usual hateful nonsense. I'm not sure where I'm at now. I think I'm being boycotted again.

Rose_NoHo is fun!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192753 May 20, 2013
OutVoted wrote:
Loser's are still posting here with there stupid views.
You sure are.
OutVoted

Covina, CA

#192754 May 20, 2013
Loser's from Union City, Ca. are still posting here with there stupid views.

Clod doesn't even know about his own city, either.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192755 May 20, 2013
OutVoted wrote:
Loser's from Union City, Ca. are still posting here with there stupid views.
Clod doesn't even know about his own city, either.
You're right. I don't know much about the city my ISP is in. But I do know you're an angry dope loser.

Hope that helped!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192757 May 20, 2013
"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?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192758 May 20, 2013
There are 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 reflexive belief that polygamous marriages must be evil and oppressive even in societies where they are traditional is basically an expression of cultural prejudice.

Women in polygamous societies may decide to become a rich man's second wife rather than a poor man's only wife, and do not necessarily feel oppressed by that choice. Their children usually turn out well-adjusted.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192759 May 20, 2013
"Off topic!!!" is not a valid argument against marriage equality.
F rizzidoos

Covina, CA

#192760 May 20, 2013
SkiDew, when are you going to dry up and blow away?
sheesh

Delaplane, VA

#192761 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave VV the facts a while ago. He chooses to continue the slander. His deceit is pointed out virtually every day. You know that. Now you are trying to go Obama innocent/dumb about it.
At the most, his words are hear-say. You took them and formed your own 'conclusions'. I simply point out that lack of character and accurately term it as rooted in bigotry and hatred.
But hey, if you want to keep exposing yourself, it's your reputation.
Sheesh.
I mean Smile.
You gave him the facts days ago, so repeat them. As I said before, perhaps you need a little volume, I DIDN'T READ WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE THE TRUTH. Is it so difficult for you to repeat? All I've got is that you lived in Hawaii and ran from someone you claim was crazy in order to not expose your children to them. Do you not agree that this sort of occurrence can be stressful to children? Elaborate for clarity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192762 May 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave VV the facts a while ago. He chooses to continue the slander. His deceit is pointed out virtually every day. You know that. Now you are trying to go Obama innocent/dumb about it.
At the most, his words are hear-say. You took them and formed your own 'conclusions'. I simply point out that lack of character and accurately term it as rooted in bigotry and hatred.
But hey, if you want to keep exposing yourself, it's your reputation.
Sheesh.
I mean Smile.
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
You gave him the facts days ago, so repeat them. As I said before, perhaps you need a little volume, I DIDN'T READ WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE THE TRUTH. Is it so difficult for you to repeat? All I've got is that you lived in Hawaii and ran from someone you claim was crazy in order to not expose your children to them. Do you not agree that this sort of occurrence can be stressful to children? Elaborate for clarity.
No.

Smile.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192764 May 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Unbelievable.
The 'old fashioned way'??? Are you serious.
Two gays screw a woman to impregnate her, she abandons her child to two guys who withhold not just the child's mother, but his real father too. No decent parent would do that to a child!
A perfect example of why ss couples should never be allowed around children. Despicable and depraved.
So, when an opposite-gender couple does the exact same thing, that's not despicable and depraved?

Hypocrite...
F rizzidoos

Covina, CA

#192765 May 21, 2013
Just take the first exit, you fool.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192766 May 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when an opposite-gender couple does the exact same thing, that's not despicable and depraved?
Hypocrite...
Yes. If an opposite gender couple invite another guy in and he and the husband take turns banging the wife it would be almost the same thing.

But if the wife took on two guys and she wasn't married to either it would be pretty close to the exact same thing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192767 May 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. If an opposite gender couple invite another guy in and he and the husband take turns banging the wife it would be almost the same thing.
But if the wife took on two guys and she wasn't married to either it would be pretty close to the exact same thing.
Exactly, only more.

Any mother who plans on abandoning a deliberately birthed child, and a father who hides his identity is also diabolically wrong.

Only the queen of DeNial is confused.

Smirk.

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.

Nevada City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Linden High School remembers Pearl Harbor Dec 7 SHlTWORMDAEGUDEBD... 3
Nevada County Food Bank to Stop Distribution in... Dec 2 Jessie 1
Patient blacklisting happens (Jul '06) Nov 30 Grady Henderson 31
Review: DI Pietro Windy Noreen MFT Oct '14 Melonnee Desiree ... 1
Review: No Problem Oct '14 GoldCountry Roofing 1
'Little Shop of Horrors', a cult classic, bloss... Sep '14 Zombella 1
East Palo Alto's Highway 101 Ped/Bike Bridge Al... Aug '14 fishes 1
Nevada City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Nevada City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Nevada City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Nevada City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:09 am PST