Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,794

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

#179335 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.
Really why you mad, If you want to be a Coc*k hound go for it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179336 Feb 11, 2013
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthought...

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?
GOP trashers

Monrovia, CA

#179337 Feb 11, 2013
GOP trash in congress forment disharmony, they all should be taken out in handcuffs and made to do the perp walk in front of tghe camera's.

A Republican congressman says he's invited rocker Ted Nugent, who has referred to President Barack Obama's administration as "evil, America-hating," to the State of the Union address.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas said Monday on his website that Nugent will be his guest for the president's speech Tuesday night.

Stockman has talked of impeaching Obama over his gun-control proposals.

Like most if not all Texans - they are stupid and dumb as rocks. Remember these pieces of trash from Texas decalred WAR on the United States of America and killed American citizens and solders.

“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

Location hidden

#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?

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 ... 19 min Mary 2
Warning Douglas Tessitor lives in your town 14 hr bees waxed 1
mexican landscapers dump in the desert Thu its me daisy 53
Review: 1-800 Loanmart Mar 20 karl deshayes 1
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... Mar 19 Martha 14
News Chinese tourists power-shopping in U.S. (Aug '13) Mar 7 Drgunzet 12
mature white women for young dark mature n sexy... Mar 4 Sean G 1
Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]