Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,862

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.

Read more

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179338 Feb 11, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe let your straight man JizmBird58 be the comedian of your team for a while. He's funnier when he gets mad.
I thnk I am gonna have a kegger, Don't mind the extra traffic in yer head.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#179339 Feb 11, 2013
Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:
Liberalism itself has been ruining this nation inside and out since the hippy movement. What it is that has been lacking over time and playing itself out here in America for many many years and that is there are literally ZERO people within our governing process that adheres to or promotes the principles of morality and common sense anymore.
It is astonishing of how lacking of such virtues can bring a county, a state, and a nation to the day of reckoning. Now that liberals have another four years and absolutely NOTHING planned to benefit ALL citizens will we see a serious downturn here and abroad and all you will hear and see is fingerpointing from a man that never held a job in the private sector. This President has no plan.
Goodbye Rome
You are a typical con dumb, so you won't haven an answer. You just parrot the right wing lines.
But here we go:
When were our morals better, and what made them better?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#179340 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.firstthings.com/blo gs/firstthoughts/2011/12/15/a- question-for-same-sex-marriage -advocates/
A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:
...
Start a forum about polygamy.
Kim Moreno Parishioner

Riverside, CA

#179341 Feb 11, 2013
AMEN
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179342 Feb 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a typical con dumb, so you won't haven an answer. You just parrot the right wing lines.
But here we go:
When were our morals better, and what made them better?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179343 Feb 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Start a forum about polygamy.
No. This is a perfectly good thread marriage equality thread.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179344 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.firstthings.com/blo gs/firstthoughts/2011/12/15/a- question-for-same-sex-marriage -advocates/
A Question for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:11 AM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
There’s a delicious ending to Matt Franck’s piece at Public Discourse today. An advocate of same-sex marriage ridicules appeals to the definition of marriage and to tradition by same-sex marriage skeptics, only to make the same appeals when faced with the question of polygamy:
[Lambda Legal attorney Hayley Gorenberg] had begun, in her prepared remarks, by calling on a standard of “rights” that cannot be defeated by appeals to “tradition.” And she had mocked judges who, in the early decisions on the case for same-sex marriage, had simply turned to a dictionary definition of marriage.
Yet, in her response to my point about plural marriages, Gorenberg herself turned immediately to tradition and to received definitions. Marriage just is a “binary institution,” she asserted, and changing that fact would entail all sorts of inconveniences.(The historic existence of polygamy in many places is proof that these inconveniences are not insurmountable, but this did not slow her down.)
Why mere tradition was now owed such automatic allegiance, she did not pause to explain. Now the prospect of altering a “whole raft of laws” associated with marriage filled her with horror and incredulity. She seemed quite oblivious of the fact that she was making my argument for me. Where was her concern about changing all the details and complexities of a forest of family law planted thick with assumptions about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, always of opposite sexes?
Same-sex marriage advocates like Gorenberg are guilty of precisely the sin they accuse SSM skeptics of—arbitrary, non-principled exclusion of certain persons from marriage.(Agree or disagree with their principles, the skeptics have offered principled reasons for limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.)
The question I have for SSM advocates is this: Do you support polygamy (and just don’t want the public to know) or do you deny that there’s any irony in your incomplete marriage revisionism?
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.

Marry 15 women for all I care.

In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Hot gassers

Monrovia, CA

#179345 Feb 11, 2013
Blow it out your catalitic converter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179346 Feb 11, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.

See.....that didn't hurt a bit.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179347 Feb 11, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, who gives a mangina about plural marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry 15 women for all I care.
In the meantime, SSM has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the two individuals involved.
Seriously, who gives a mangina about same sex marriage? It's a red herring argument and you've turned into a one-trick pony just like Kimare.
Marry a man for all I care.
In the meantime, Polygamy has NO bearing on anyone's life other than the individuals involved.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179348 Feb 11, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many 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?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179349 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wowwwwwwww......my my...oh the hyprocracy! Oh I get it, marriage equality only goes as far as the rainbow clubhouse door. Do ya hear that? It sounds like someone knocking.....let's go see who it is.....why it's the Brown family. Well come on in...there's plenty of room in the marriage equality movement.
See.....that didn't hurt a bit.
It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.
Raggers

Monrovia, CA

#179351 Feb 11, 2013
Non will be needed from now on, the record is just fine as is.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#179352 Feb 11, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179353 Feb 11, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".
And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#179355 Feb 12, 2013
Racial differences are tiny and unimportant but gender differences are great and essential to the survival of the human race. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for marriage as one man and one woman.

If you reject segregation, reject gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage integrated and gender diverse as male/female.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179357 Feb 12, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".
Funny, I am not a bigot, but you are. I support marriage equality. Do you? Not just for people you approve of but for everyone?

Funny, I supported civil rights for interracial marriage in those days. Did you?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179358 Feb 12, 2013
Wonder if that hypocrite "Big D" is going to rant against equal rights for groups he doesn't approve of again today.

Better that than those religion jags he goes on and bores us all with!

He goes on and on like some quacked out fundie on Modesto meth!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Big D(ope)!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179359 Feb 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.
Some of them, like the jackass "Big D" aren't even shy about it. He says polygamists are child molesters, welfare cheats and all around scumbags!

And he thinks it's perfectly fine to believe that and still be a champion of equal rights (but only for people he likes).
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179360 Feb 12, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many 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?

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Desert Hot Springs Mayor Proud Of Out Of State ... Apr 15 Tony 20
News Group seeks to stop Nestlea s water-bottling op... Apr 14 speak out 1
Best SmokeShop in Valley?? Apr 13 BigJG 1
Review: 1-800 Loanmart Apr 13 BigJG 2
Any Nice Sweet Babysitters in Indio?:) Apr 13 BigJG 1
Indio Fun;) Apr 13 BigJG 1
Any Cougars or milfs ??? Apr 12 bear2015 2
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]