Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201891 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, 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

Hayward, CA

#193732 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
While there certainly are gay polygamists (The Advocate had an article on them recently) there are no "polygamist couples" of any kind.

And you call me an idiot!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193733 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You should try saying something that makes sense. That didn't.
Another stupid bigot.(Cliche. Yawn.)
Hypocrite says what?

P.S. I support same sex marriage. You are very stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193734 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.

The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193735 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal after…. Zero effect.
Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally don’t have a problem with poly by consenting adults.
But it doesn’t have public support the way Same sex marriage has
He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against SSM. What don't you understand about A man and A woman? Does it say men? Does it say women? Always ask for help. Remember, there are no stupid posts, only stupid posters such as yourself.

If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was not, would polygamy be legal? No? What would be stopping it? Prop 8 would! Very good! See?

I'm not a tool in the shed and you are not smart.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193736 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.
The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
I have found that the door to the rainbow room often slams shut when logic comes knocking.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193737 May 29, 2013
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...

Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too

BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM

The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.

Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.

Darger writes:

“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”

Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.

Darger closes by saying and asking:

“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...

“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”

We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.

Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?

UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
BoytTime

San Dimas, CA

#193738 May 29, 2013
That goofy Michele Backmann isn't running again, I'm happy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193739 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...
Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too
BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM
The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.
Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.
Darger writes:
“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”
Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.
Darger closes by saying and asking:
“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...
“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”
We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.
Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?
UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:
“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
Bravo!

I posted a link to the Slate article but of course it was ridiculed by the people of tolerance and diversity.

Notice all the missing post numbers yesterday. I made some good arguments. Too good it seems.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193740 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious belief is a conduct. You don't pop from the womb a Catholic or a Jew. You are "raised" to be a Catholic or a Jew. You "learn" to become these things.
True.
All of our best information on homosexuality shows that being gay IS NOT something that is learned. You either are or you are not gay. You come from the womb a gay person or a straight person.
That makes homosexuality a "status"--like race and gender.
Not so fast, there are a number of factors involved. Even so, it still involves behavior.
And regarding your last question as to "what state restrictions could ever exist?"; that is the whole point of the court battles, legislative processes, etc. No one is saying that the state can't restrict marriage in whatever way it sees fit. However, the LGBT community is attempting to overturn one of the state's restrictions--namely the law that doesn't allow same-gender partners to marry.
You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up. And we respond by saying that the state will consider each individual issue brought before it, just like it is considering our issue.
What restrictions, beyond age of consent, and being able to consent are there? Opposite sex, not closely related by blood, and not currently legally married. That's it! A few states have dispensed with the opp sex requirement. That leaves number, and blood relation. Which one of those are acceptable to you, and why? Will either one impact you personally?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193741 May 29, 2013
From Pietro's link for those trying to ignore it-

"So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet." -Jillian Keenan.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193742 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against SSM. What don't you understand about A man and A woman? Does it say men? Does it say women? Always ask for help. Remember, there are no stupid posts, only stupid posters such as yourself.
If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was not, would polygamy be legal? No? What would be stopping it? Prop 8 would! Very good! See?
I'm not a tool in the shed and you are not smart.
It also discriminates against marriage to space aliens.( chuckle ) Bring them in and more than double the number of people that will be interested in this aspect.

I understand the entire thing Frankie, I am not the one with a comprehension issues.
If you were honest we could have a conversation
but you aren’t ( shrug )
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193743 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It also discriminates against marriage to space aliens.( chuckle ) Bring them in and more than double the number of people that will be interested in this aspect.
I understand the entire thing Frankie, I am not the one with a comprehension issues.
If you were honest we could have a conversation
but you aren’t ( shrug )
Of course it's the other way around.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193744 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's the other way around.
Seriously Frankie, if you bring in the UFO folks it will swell your numbers to over twice the current size.

There is no question that marriage between 1 mind and 1 woman discriminates against 4 out of 5 sexes on Vega :D
BoydCounty

San Dimas, CA

#193745 May 29, 2013
Glendora, California home front says;

I will defend your campaign to recall our elected officials if you are unhappy with the incumbents, vote them out; it's that simple.

We all already know that our elected representatives have let us down.

It's sad to witness some people doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons.

We, the taxpayers, need to keep our spending at City Hall to a minimum until we can shore up our general fund and reserve.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193746 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
<quoted text>
Not so fast, there are a number of factors involved. Even so, it still involves behavior.
<quoted text>
What restrictions, beyond age of consent, and being able to consent are there? Opposite sex, not closely related by blood, and not currently legally married. That's it! A few states have dispensed with the opp sex requirement. That leaves number, and blood relation. Which one of those are acceptable to you, and why? Will either one impact you personally?
If a gay guy becomes unable to perform sexually, he is still gay. His attractions--his orientation--is to be attracted to other men.

Being gay does not require an "action". In fact, as most gay men report, they knew that they were gay from an early age because of their ATTRACTTION to other males.

Being a polygamist requires an act. It requires an attempt to have multiple spouses.

I am willing to bet that many married men look longingly at other women. Does their desire to be with other women make them "polygamists"? No! It makes them men with attractions--with an orientation toward the opposite sex.

You're not going to win this one.

Finally, I WILL NOT endorse any attempts to legalize polygamy, marriage between blood relatives, underage marriage, etc.

Your post above, about the guy who wishes to legalize his marriage to his three wives, has the SAME access to the SAME processes that the LGBT Community has used to fight for their own marriage recognition.

He has the same capability to go out and hire an attorney, seek the backing of the ACLU, mobilize other polygamists, educate the public on the benefits of polygamy, sway the masses that denying polygamy is discriminatory behavior, etc.

Perhaps he'll be successful.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193747 May 29, 2013
KNOXVILLE — Two West Knox County brothers are recovering at a local hospital as authorities continue to investigate numerous beatings they allegedly suffered by their stepmother, the state Department of Children’s Services confirms.

Deputies arrested Jessica Ann Cox, 36, in the mobile home park where she lives at 834 Canton Hollow Road on charges of child abuse and aggravated child abuse Tuesday, according to the Knox County Sheriff’s Office.

Warrants allege that Cox repeatedly abused the two brothers, ages 14 and 16. The older boy told authorities she had handcuffed his hands above his head to a kitchen cabinet and beat him on his feet with a rubber mallet and wooden rolling pin, warrants state. Authorities found the older boy to have swollen legs and a large, open wound on the top of his foot.

Other times, Cox allegedly handcuffed the brothers together.

“Both victims stated they have been handcuffed numerous times and burned with cigarettes and incense,” the warrants read.“(The 16-year-old) has scars consistent with healed burns on his arms and penis.”

The two victims now are at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital. Two other children also were removed from the residence Tuesday and placed in the custody of relatives, DCS spokesman Rob Johnson said.

KCSO and the state Department of Children’s Services continue to investigate the case, according to the warrants.

DCS Child Protective Services investigators are looking into the family history, he added, although it was not immediately clear whether DCS previously has received reports of alleged abuse in the household.

----------

I wonder if Kimare believes that these kids would have preferred being raised by a non-abusive, supportive, loving, same-sex couple, if given the option.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193748 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Frankie, if you bring in the UFO folks it will swell your numbers to over twice the current size.
There is no question that marriage between 1 mind and 1 woman discriminates against 4 out of 5 sexes on Vega :D
You are even more ridiculous than the stupidest SSM detractor. You use the same arguments you ridicule when used against SSM and you are too stupid to realize it.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193749 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support marriage equality, and you do not. LOL. Fricking hypocrite.
Now you're making assumptions out of your ass. Dickwad.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193750 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>He has the same capability to go out and hire an attorney, seek the backing of the ACLU, mobilize other polygamists, educate the public on the benefits of polygamy, sway the masses that denying polygamy is discriminatory behavior, etc.
Perhaps he'll be successful.
The bozos bringing this up here have already stated that they are personally not willing to lift a finger to promote polygamy, they just want to whine at you for not doing so.

whining, it is what they are good at

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193751 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several 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?
Why is "if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage" of any consequence to "why should monogamy continue to be so important?"

What does monogamy have to do with polygamy? Plenty of traditionally married couples are not monogamous. They cheat all over the place, divorce and remarry, etc.

There is no cause and effect here. It's a matter of perspective.

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who knows? Sat Vanessa 3
Neighbors make your home HELL!! (May '08) Sat Vanessa 33
Oakdale's finest. (Dec '09) Feb 16 No ones pawn 6
Stanislaus County DA's Office... Feb 15 Your Service Prov... 3
Overdue Account Feb 14 Your Service Prov... 1
city towing contracts (Feb '06) Feb 14 Your Service Prov... 4
News Chow Down at Oakdale's Testicle Festival (Mar '09) Feb 13 Phart Hungrily 76

Oakdale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oakdale Mortgages