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
164,881 - 164,900 of 200,552 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188889
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about there's no rational reason to have it. None, niente....zip...how did western civilization survive into the 21st century, on this quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Radical...before ya know it someone will suggesy that human reproduction is sexual. What a concept....sex between men and women makes babies. Who knows maybe one of those babies will grow up and call himself "Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects.....
Because we are a nation of Justice, Freedom and Equality, were justice is blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.

Because it is the right thing to do

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188890
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just switch sides? Are you now all of a sudden supportive of Same Sex marriage?
Contradiction in terms....Same sex marriage......its like calling a veggie patty a "burger".
Or are you trying to nibble at specific laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8 that you know would scare your constituency even more. Your problem isnít your constituency, the people you need to try and convince is everyone else.
Simply posing legitimate questions that SSMers seem to have difficulty answering. Why prohibit same sex siblings from getting the government bennies pkg know as marriage?
The more outlandish you get, the more you look like a screaming fanatic... that works in some circles... but not where you need it.
From here... you look like you are getting desperate, and I suppose you should be.
Tsk...tsk.....see what happens when we fool with mother nature? We don't know where it will end.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188891
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradiction in terms....Same sex marriage......its like calling a veggie patty a "burger".
<quoted text>
Simply posing legitimate questions that SSMers seem to have difficulty answering. Why prohibit same sex siblings from getting the government bennies pkg know as marriage?
<quoted text>
Tsk...tsk.....see what happens when we fool with mother nature? We don't know where it will end.
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.

Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188892
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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 Californiaís 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,ďwhat state restrictions could ever exist,Ē for example,ďwith respect to the number of people ... that could get married?Ē
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.<quoted text>
let's highlight this from the above :
"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."
Olson's argument was not disputed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188893
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.
SSSB is perhaps common, and rather old, calling it "homosexuality" is new.
Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
Simply pointing out the obvious. Marriage throughout human history as been virtually a male female relationship, either monogamous or polygamous. SSM, except for a few scattered historical examples, is a recent modern Western invention. The collective wisdom of the ages, Mother Nature, to put it anotherway, indicates that the building block of human societies is the union of male and female. Its worked since the dawn of time, why fundamentally alter it now?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188894
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Which reminds me... Mother Nature is a great argument for Poly supporters.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188895
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
SSSB is perhaps common, and rather old, calling it "homosexuality" is new.
<quoted text>
Simply pointing out the obvious. Marriage throughout human history as been virtually a male female relationship, either monogamous or polygamous. SSM, except for a few scattered historical examples, is a recent modern Western invention. The collective wisdom of the ages, Mother Nature, to put it anotherway, indicates that the building block of human societies is the union of male and female. Its worked since the dawn of time, why fundamentally alter it now?
You know me, I donít care about historically, historically Christians were murdered for sport and entertainment, historically protestants were burned at the stake for their beliefs, historically women were not allowed a vote and so on and so forth.

Just because something used to be true, doesnít make it a good thing.

There are those that argued that slavery was a building block of society, numerous times through history in many civilizations.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188896
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but sibling cannot get married now, regardless of their gender, so htat argument makes no sense.
if hte details of hte polygamous marriage are nto worked out, how can you say it would be equal? three wives getting the same survivor benefits for SS? not equal to my marriage...
"It's not equal to my marriage. "See how you are? No better than those against SSM.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration that same sex marriage does.

Women receiving their husband's social security is so 20th century! Most women if not all work these days and get their own SS.

And two husbands can share their deceased wife's SS.

You are falling back on your dumb "it's too complicated" reason to deny equality. Heard it. It's bogus. Try again.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188897
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
ok. so you stated your opinion. keep in mind, everyone has the same right as you to form their own opinion.
and i'm far from angry. strangers on the internet do not have that capacity to control my emotions. you just don't like being called out on your slipperly slope arguments as big d is doing.
Yes. You are angry. And why? Because I am making you see that you are using the same arguments against a form of marriage you don't you agree with as those against SSM use.

The slippery slope is real. But insignificant and not a reason to deny equal rights. Any arguments that it is not real are dumb.
Funkers

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188898
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

The article, "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom," by "the AQ Chef" instructed would-be bombers to glue shrapnel to the inside of a pressure cooker and then fill in the cooker with the inflammable material.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188899
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You know me, I donít care about historically, historically Christians were murdered for sport and entertainment, historically protestants were burned at the stake for their beliefs, historically women were not allowed a vote and so on and so forth.
Big D.....its rather simple actually. Historically there are two sexes, historically humans reproduce sexually, historically both sexes are needed for that to happen, historically human societies have understood all of that....that's why marriage throughout time and place.... Boy girl.
Just because something used to be true, doesnít make it a good thing.
So sex between men and women no longer makes babies? There are no longer two sexes?
There are those that argued that slavery was a building block of society, numerous times through history in many civilizations.
How many have argued that sex between men and women doesn't make babies? Or argued there aren't two sexes?

So sex between men and women no longer makes babies?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188900
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isnít that you arenít allowed to discuss it Frankie, you can say whatever you want here, and we can laugh at you for it, the same as you laugh at us for anything and everything we say. Donít pretend you donít it is far too late for that.
That isnít the point, the point is if you are going to use the decades old standard playbook against same sex marriage, word for word that we have been hearing for years... donít be too surprised when we call you on it.
But you are wrong. I genuinely support marriage equality. You claim I do not to avoid the truths I am making you feel. The inner Big D bigot so to speak. It makes you angry too. But that's on you. Don't shoot the messenger. Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration that same sex marriage has. Y

Shall I repost your hateful spew regarding child molestations, welfare cheating and other sordid crimes you associate with a loving law abiding poly family? Or do you want to forget that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188901
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple claiming to support same sex marriage or poly when you actually arenít is hypocritical
and this is from someone that would, and has voted for same sex marriage and will vote in favor of Poly if and when it ever comes up.
I am willing to wager I am more in favor of Poly than you are, it is just that you are more obsessed with the subject because you think you can use it against same sex marriage.
I am less interested in it because I donít think it will be possible for at least a decade. Same was true of same sex marriage 10 years ago.
You are afraid of polygamy, I am not. I will be happy to see it legalized. You won't be. The end.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. And that makes you angry with me? Don't shoot the messenger.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188902
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if you want to change that law, go ahead, but it doesn't wash with the marriage equality argument...
Don't hog the movement dude! Marriage equality is not exclusive to same sex marriage. See how you are?

What don't you understand about equality? It means for all marriages. Not just ones you approve of.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188903
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the next paragraph in the decades old religious nut jobs pamphlet opposed to Same Sex marriage.
First you bring up Poly, then you move straight to Incest.
Ya ya... heard it all before.
You arenít scaring anyone other than those that are so brain bound by religion they would not be in favor of same sex marriage anyone, that argument wonít work on anyone with a pinch of intelligence left.
Your problem is you are playing to your constituency, those already opposed to same sex marriage, you wonít convince any of the majority to oppose same sex marriage with that kind of tactic.
Same reason Republicans arenít winning the presidency, they are playing only to their out of touch constituency and not the majority of voters.
I am not trying to scare anyone. I am not scared of poly and incest. Why are you?

Please get off your "Frankie's a liar" schtick. I am not trying to trick you. You are frustrated because you realize you are against marriage equality, Get angry with yourself, not me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188904
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
no where in the court cases was polygamy included or even discussed. it was not included. i'm not going to project and guess why or why not.
what we can discuss is what is really pertinent to the Prop 8 case - what is documented via court documents to be a consideration. that's the topic of this thread - the judge's findings in the Prop 8 trial.
if you want to discuss polygamy - then show us where in the court documents that it's discussed, included or mentioned. specifically.
If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 stayed in force would polygamy be legal in California? No? Why not? Because prop 8 forbids it! Duh!

Prop 8 discriminates against poly the same as it does against same sex marriage. Or else it would say marriage is "only men and women" But it doesn't say that it says marriage is "only ONE man and ONE Woman"
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188905
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are afraid of polygamy, I am not. I will be happy to see it legalized. You won't be. The end.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. And that makes you angry with me? Don't shoot the messenger.
I never said I was angry with you, only sorry for you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188906
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just switch sides? Are you now all of a sudden supportive of Same Sex marriage?
Or are you trying to nibble at specific laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8 that you know would scare your constituency even more. Your problem isnít your constituency, the people you need to try and convince is everyone else.
The more outlandish you get, the more you look like a screaming fanatic... that works in some circles... but not where you need it.
From here... you look like you are getting desperate, and I suppose you should be.
If anyone acts like a screaming fanatic here, it's you.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188907
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not trying to scare anyone. I am not scared of poly and incest. Why are you?
Please get off your "Frankie's a liar" schtick. I am not trying to trick you. You are frustrated because you realize you are against marriage equality, Get angry with yourself, not me.
I am not afraid of it, never was.

I would vote for it with a clear conscience if and when it comes up.

I am not frustrated, but you sure must be, your points are just falling apart right and left
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188908
Apr 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we are a nation of Justice, Freedom and Equality, were justice is blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
Because it is the right thing to do


It's SUPER D!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Oroville Discussions

Search the Oroville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Dragonflyer 15,928
Recent reports of bodies found/murders in Orovi... 12 hr Justsaying 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Mon Green Soilent 4,975
Review: VALLEY HOME CENTERS Aug 16 Scott Alexander 1
Review: Oroville Tacos Aug 9 Steve M 1
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Aug 6 starbucks 2,262
•••
•••
•••
•••

Oroville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oroville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oroville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••