Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,189

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
sheesh

Washington, DC

#192729 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem isn't that you don't read much, it is that you don't comprehend much.
That coupled with your hatred and bigotry would give my crazy person a run for his money...
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
You took Queen VV's knowingly untrue post and added your own distortion.
It simply exposed your hatred of those who disagree with imposing an imposter relationship on marriage.
Now you add denial to your bigotry and hatred.
Smile.
I'm not sure if it is your active imagination or your inability to read and comprehend...

What I said earlier was that I had been away for a few days and hadn't bothered reading all the material between my last visit and the point where I picked up. This dropped me into the middle of your conversation with VV about you living in Hawaii and relocating. I had no way of knowing whether his post was true or untrue. All that I did was point out how traumatic it can be to a child to be moved. Apparently, you compounded that by exposing your kid(s) to a person you claim is crazy. I didn't know what portion of the tale was true or untrue and apparently you're not willing to expand on the matter so all I've got are those few details. Details that don't sound like your kid(s) were in a stable environment. Unless you consider fleeing from crazy people normal.

What exactly about VV's post was untrue? Did you live in Hawaii? Did you have a problem with an insane person there that forced you to move? That was the crux of the comment that got my attention on this little side discussion.

You failed to show where I've displayed any bigotry and hatred too.

It is your opinion that same sex marriage is an imposter relationship. There are those who would agree with you and those who don't. Try not to let yourself get confused by the difference between fact and opinion. Honestly, why is it necessary for me to point this out to you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192730 May 20, 2013
Looks like the judge-it rigging fairie is out! Heavily rigging the judge-its like it matters or something.

Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192732 May 20, 2013
It seems the judge-it fairie considers me very "Racy" today. You know, I do feel kind of "Racy" today.

Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192733 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he has stated several times now that he is totally clueless about the massive support for same sex marriage in the US, he honestly has no idea what is going on....
Really Big D? Aren't you fibbing again?

Please refer us to the "several" posts where he has "stated" this.

We won't wait.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192734 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely said. As Christianity continues to lose members, ignorance and hatred will contine to as well.
History has recorded that claim many times before.

Idiot.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192735 May 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Big D? Aren't you fibbing again?
Please refer us to the "several" posts where he has "stated" this.
We won't wait.
Dont worry

Others have the ability to look back and have not lost thier memory.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192737 May 20, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure if it is your active imagination or your inability to read and comprehend...
What I said earlier was that I had been away for a few days and hadn't bothered reading all the material between my last visit and the point where I picked up. This dropped me into the middle of your conversation with VV about you living in Hawaii and relocating. I had no way of knowing whether his post was true or untrue. All that I did was point out how traumatic it can be to a child to be moved. Apparently, you compounded that by exposing your kid(s) to a person you claim is crazy. I didn't know what portion of the tale was true or untrue and apparently you're not willing to expand on the matter so all I've got are those few details. Details that don't sound like your kid(s) were in a stable environment. Unless you consider fleeing from crazy people normal.
What exactly about VV's post was untrue? Did you live in Hawaii? Did you have a problem with an insane person there that forced you to move? That was the crux of the comment that got my attention on this little side discussion.
You failed to show where I've displayed any bigotry and hatred too.
It is your opinion that same sex marriage is an imposter relationship. There are those who would agree with you and those who don't. Try not to let yourself get confused by the difference between fact and opinion. Honestly, why is it necessary for me to point this out to you?
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.
The Real Rev Al

Albany, NY

#192738 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
My gay cousin and his boy friend have a son and they did it the old fashioned way with a close female friend of theirs. They do not want to know which one of them is the father having taken turns several times each it could be either of them; they wish it to remain a mystery, however it is obvious which one it is just by looking at the son.
He must be so proud of his Mama.....Mother's Day and Father's day gotta be confusin'.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192739 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont worry
Others have the ability to look back and have not lost thier memory.
But you don't. Because he never "stated" that. You get all emotional then you start fibbing.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192740 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.
LMAO! "Go Obama". That could (and should) catch on.

I think the people of tolerance and diversity are feeling very defensive lately about their choice for president. Makes 'em even more mean and nasty than usual. They'll deny deny deny just like Obama.

"Transparency" indeed.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192741 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue isn't what marriage 'requires', it is, are ss couple equal to marriage. If so, then yes, they deserve equal rights.
I simply point out the numerous distinctions where they clearly are not equal to marriage.
ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. They simply don't measure up.
SMile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Marriage is a legal contract that legally joins two people's lives together.
2.) The legal marriage of two people is not predicated on their ability or plans to have children.
3.) The vast majority of marriages in this country are based on the love and long term commitment of two individuals; whether they are opposite-gender or same-gender couples.
4.) Sterility is a term given to people who cannot have children.
5.) Straight and gay individuals are capable of having children, either through adoption or through in vitro processes.
6.) You continue to lie, distort, and bore others when you say that "ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage".
7.) If you want to argue against same-gender marriage, you're going to have to come up with something that is believable and based in reality.
Nothing you distorted has anything to do with proving that ss couples equate to marriage.

1. Marriage is much more than a legal contract.

2. Children are a natural product of marriage. In fact, the lack of children indicates either a problem or an effort to prevent it.

3. All marriages are between diverse gendered couples.

4. I clearly stated that ss couples (not homosexuals) are mutually sterile. That is accurate.

5. We are not talking about default options for children. We are talking about natural child birth in a relationship with the mother and father of the child. SS couples always deprive a child of one gender and at least one parent.

6. The is no lie or distortion. Ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. That is simple pure reality.

7. If you are going to demand equal rights, you are going to have to first equate ss couples. Good luck.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192742 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
My gay cousin and his boy friend have a son and they did it the old fashioned way with a close female friend of theirs. They do not want to know which one of them is the father having taken turns several times each it could be either of them; they wish it to remain a mystery, however it is obvious which one it is just by looking at the son.
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.
just wondering

Tempe, AZ

#192743 May 20, 2013
Are people who repetitively shout "racist" and "bigot" and "homophobe" self righteous bigots themselves? Are they just another pious cult of believers of a certain dogma?

Why are they "right" and others "wrong"?
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#192744 May 20, 2013
You can almost smell the enraged tuna as Rosie furiously mashes the smilies.
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.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) Sun just cause 96
Marvin Markle (Mar '12) Oct 17 Happy 15
Review: Oroville Tacos Oct 1 Roy T 4
Leslie Bond sentenced to life in prison (Jul '10) Sep 23 RYGAR530 14
beating Sep '14 psychomike 1
Council continues Walmart appeals (Dec '10) Sep '14 Andy 49
Recent reports of bodies found/murders in Orovi... Aug '14 Justsaying 1
Oroville Dating
Find my Match

Oroville Jobs

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 ]