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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181411 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It will immediately follow any legalization of ss 'marriage', along with a host of other issues. Oh, and distainingly calling it the 'slippery slope' argument doesn't change it's validity.
Already, the extension of spouse benefits in the military to gay couples has caused a legitimate claim of discrimination by heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.
The fact is, if committed relationship of any gender is redefined as marriage, the number certainly must also be designated as discrimination. A fundamental reason marriage constrained gender and number was this; A child has one mother and one father. Never any more or less.
Smile.
You think our rights should depend on our genes.
Should you be allowed to marry? Do you think you should have been aborted? You are kind of worthless.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181412 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
according to you
but SSM was legal in California before prop 8, not poly
SSM is legal in some 10 states now, and DC, is poly?
SSM has had a LOT of victories lately
How many has Poly had?
You are under the delusion that one goes hand in hand with the other. Not at all true, and you are failing to frighten anyone with that crap.
There is an arcahic 100+ year old federal law against poly. That's based on hatred and prejudice and should be gone.

Then it will be just like SSM. Up to the states. Good thing PROP 8 is being struck down because it won't stand in the way of poly in CA.

And there's your topic.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181413 Feb 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Rosie we weren't. First, not every racial combination was prohibited, only certain ones. It wasn't applied equally. Second, who or what determined "race"?. Third, there are numerous races/ethnic groups, but only two sexes. Lastly, how is a person who is half of one and half of another classified in terms of who they can marry?
<quoted text>
You are pretty stupid. I should have figured the point would go ever your head.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Physically impossible. A man can marry a woman and vice versa.
<quoted text>
No, it's not. Gay marriages are happening in several states and countries.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually they can, its just not legally recognized.
<quoted text>
True, its as old as monogamous marriage.
Typical fundie, so stupid you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's". A typo is one thing, you folks just don't know the difference.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181414 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage pretending to be in favor of it. He keeps flooding the forum with posts about red herrings, like polygamy, because he doesn't have a real argument against gay marriage. And he is so dumb, he thinks the term "red herring" means a fish.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181415 Feb 26, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage was probably invented by men because of a shortage of women as other men had too many wives.
Yeh, I see that problem all the time...

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181416 Feb 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage pretending to be in favor of it. He keeps flooding the forum with posts about red herrings, like polygamy, because he doesn't have a real argument against gay marriage. And he is so dumb, he thinks the term "red herring" means a fish.
Says the troll who is too scared to respond to me directly.

Priceless!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181417 Feb 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
according to you
but SSM was legal in California before prop 8, not poly
SSM is legal in some 10 states now, and DC, is poly?
SSM has had a LOT of victories lately
How many has Poly had?
You are under the delusion that one goes hand in hand with the other. Not at all true, and you are failing to frighten anyone with that crap.
Ohhhhh.....so the "D" stands for denial? What frighten? Why would it matter to you if plural marriage in some form was given legal recognition? Would it crash your Big Fat Gay Wedding?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181418 Feb 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It means you are an idiot.
<quoted text>
You have two sets.
Do you think you should have been aborted?
<quoted text>
Speaking of genetic DEFECTS, do you think chimeras should be aborted?
:)
Isn't she great ladies and gentlemen. She'll be here all week, so please be kind to your waitress, waiter, or androgynous waitperson.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181419 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an arcahic 100+ year old federal law against poly. That's based on hatred and prejudice and should be gone.
Then it will be just like SSM. Up to the states. Good thing PROP 8 is being struck down because it won't stand in the way of poly in CA.
And there's your topic.
Yeahhhhh....Get 'em Frankie..what a bunch of chooches

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181420 Feb 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage pretending to be in favor of it. He keeps flooding the forum with posts about red herrings, like polygamy, because he doesn't have a real argument against gay marriage. And he is so dumb, he thinks the term "red herring" means a fish.
That would be pesce Rosa.....delicious over pasta.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181421 Feb 26, 2013
A detailed look into polygamy from an Islamic point of view. It is also a good description of various forms of poly marriage and their good and bad points.

(Not an evil Fundie Mormon point of view! Relax put down that weapon!)

http://www.al-islam.org/WomanRights/11.htm

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181422 Feb 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you left out the first logical step.
In reality, it's the current ability of heterosexuals to marry that is the leading cause for other groups to demand the right to legally marry. Same sex couples are only asking for the SAME right to marry just one person.
However, same sex couples wanting the SAME right to marry one that already exists for ever heterosexual in the country is not similar to straight people demanding the right to marry, not only ONE, but many at one time.
Separate issues. Separate effects on society.
Actually, YOU left out the first logical step.

In reality, marriage always has included the likelihood of procreation. So much so that the instances where it did not occur were ignored.

Moreover, you then simply argue tradition, without a valid reason to discriminate.

The only reason marriage was restricted to one man and one woman, was the very issue of procreation. By removing that element, you leave the setting of a natural family undefined, horn in on the protection and support designed for that foundational societal relationship, and open the door to simply any committed relationships. ANY restrictions of number and type must show harm, and children cannot be considered.

Smirk.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181423 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an arcahic 100+ year old federal law against poly. That's based on hatred and prejudice and should be gone.
Then it will be just like SSM. Up to the states. Good thing PROP 8 is being struck down because it won't stand in the way of poly in CA.
And there's your topic.
No the topic is Prop 8 and its being overturned in the California courts.

here let me post the topic header for you

"Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage"

You should start a Poly topic
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181424 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK I'll go along with your stupid straw man argument for a moment and humor you.
Let's say only 3 people in the whole world want a poly marriage. Is that a reason to deny poly marriage?
HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Are they working on getting petitions? Are they making a case in court? Or are they just using it in random internet forums to attack people in favor of other topics like Same Sex marriage?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181425 Feb 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhh.....so the "D" stands for denial? What frighten? Why would it matter to you if plural marriage in some form was given legal recognition? Would it crash your Big Fat Gay Wedding?
Oh it doesn’t frighten me, neither does SSM, but there are people it would frighten, and they are easily led which is why this argument is used.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181426 Feb 26, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
According to gays, children cannot be considered as a basis for marriage. Why are you considering a scenario where they are?

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181427 Feb 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't she great ladies and gentlemen. She'll be here all week, so please be kind to your waitress, waiter, or androgynous waitperson.
If anybody is androgynous, it's KiMare. LOL!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181428 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
According to gays, children cannot be considered as a basis for marriage. Why are you considering a scenario where they are?
Smile.
You liar. Nobody has said that.
People just say you don't have to be able to have children in order to marry.
And that's the truth.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181429 Feb 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, YOU left out the first logical step.
In reality, marriage always has included the likelihood of procreation. So much so that the instances where it did not occur were ignored.
Moreover, you then simply argue tradition, without a valid reason to discriminate.
The only reason marriage was restricted to one man and one woman, was the very issue of procreation.
No matter how you twist things, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Can you?
KiMare wrote:
<
By removing that element, you leave the setting of a natural family undefined, horn in on the protection and support designed for that foundational societal relationship, and open the door to simply any committed relationships. ANY restrictions of number and type must show harm, and children cannot be considered.
Smirk.
LOL.
The whole logic thing, beyond you, huh?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181430 Feb 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be pesce Rosa.....delicious over pasta.
Aringa rosa! Eccellente!

And dopey rose_noho says that's polygamy!

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 ... 7 hr Beath 3
Warning Douglas Tessitor lives in your town Fri 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 ]