Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201865 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188010 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a terrible sense of humor, unfortunately most of the jokes I know and enjoy are not for ... polite company :)
My brothers and I... we find humor in just about everything, and nothing is sacred
I did enjoy that one of yours.
You know why some girls start going to church? They heard there was a white guy hung like this ( arms outstretched )
That last line was funny. Ya know Big D, even though we "duel", debate back and forth, and you come across sometimes as being on high, you sound like you'd be a funny guy to break garlic bread with. Now back to our program.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188011 Apr 10, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
just because one idiot says something doesn't make it true for the whole group.
or do you subscribe to the thought that in the case of rape, women can just shut that whole thing down, too?
there's idiots on both sides, buddy. face it. and they often will open their pie holes and embarass the whole group.
"pieholes"? Are you a friend of Old SniffsButt Bill?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188012 Apr 10, 2013
Before judging Alina, Valerie and Vicki, the three wives of Joe Darger, try the experiment Joe Henrich offers his college students in his evolutionary-psychology class at the University of British Columbia. Imagine, he says, that you have to choose between two potential spouses. You feel the same about each. Each cherishes you. Lover A is a regular, middle-class individual. Lover B is a billionaire, the kind with time and money to spare. The caveat is that Lover B is already married and wants to add you as a second spouse, which for the purposes of this experiment is completely legal. Which would you choose? "Seventy percent of the women said they'd be willing to consider being the second wife of the billionaire rather than the average guy's first wife," says Henrich. "Only about 10% of the men would consider it if the scenario were reversed."

It's a completely unscientific test, but even so, the results are a little jarring. A majority of this sample of young, educated Western women would at least contemplate marrying the billionaire bigamist. Doesn't this fly in the face of decades of laborious cultivation of women's power? Doesn't it run counter to the classic love story of boy meets girl and they live happily ever after? Isn't it just weird and cultish?

Proponents of defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman have long argued that if we entertain variations on that theme, like gay marriage, the institution will soon become unrecognizable. "If you think it's O.K. for two [men to marry], then you have to differentiate with me as to why it's not O.K. for three," said former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on the campaign trail, echoing a common refrain. Even though there's no historical precedent linking one to the other, growing public support for gay marriage has nonetheless gladdened the hearts of polygamists. "If people are open to gay marriage, it impacts on how they look at plural marriage," says Darger, who lives with his three wives and 18 of his 23 children in Herriman, Utah, about 25 miles from Salt Lake City. "You can't talk about gay marriage and still criminalize us for who we love and how we organize our families."

Close observers of the marital topography are noticing a shift in attitudes toward polygamy and its sister wife, polyamory, which can roughly be defined as having multiple lovers by mutual agreement. Partly this is a result of a decades-long wholesale rethinking of the institution of marriage and who society and the courts say can engage in it. But it's also a result of more exposure to polygamous lifestyles. Some polygamists, sensing unsteadiness in the big ship monogamy that has always blocked their passage to the oceans of normality, are trying to navigate their way to validation of their version of family.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188013 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That last line was funny. Ya know Big D, even though we "duel", debate back and forth, and you come across sometimes as being on high, you sound like you'd be a funny guy to break garlic bread with. Now back to our program.
Sometimes?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188014 Apr 10, 2013
So Big D, should polygamy b legal? We wouldn't want to stay in the dark ages, now would we?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188015 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What has been fun to watch is the other side, scrambling to get on board, this is yet another issue that republicans will be in the minority on if they don’t jump to the other side of the line.
Which they are doing more every week.
There is a civil war brewing, between hard line ultra conservatives and the mainstream GOP ( which admittedly really aren’t all that bad ) If you think there were fireworks in the last nomination process, wait till the next one.
The mainstream GOP is not going to take a loss like that again easily, they are going to want to run more moderate candidates that don’t have to act like right wing nut jobs to get nominated.
It will be fun to watch
For SSM it is a win-win situation, as the ultra conservatives still have not figured out that they cannot divide themselves into a majority, only a smaller minority. And mainstream GOP are coming on board for equality and justice.
i read earlier this week that ol' governor big hair (and big head) from down here in texas wants to run for the GOP presidential nomination again.

geez. like he wasn't whipped badly enough the last time. what's really bothersome is that down here in texas, no one can stand him, yet he keeps being re-elected into the governor's seat. no one understands it. no one 'fesses up and says they actually voted for him.

if the GOP entertains Perry again & lets him run, even in the primaries, they'd have shot themselves in the foot and lost any credibility with the voting public they might gain in the coming year or two with the scrambling going on in the GOP.

louisiana's even worse. jindal's messed things up royally. i have family living there - and they're complaining almost as much as us texans are.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188016 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That last line was funny. Ya know Big D, even though we "duel", debate back and forth, and you come across sometimes as being on high, you sound like you'd be a funny guy to break garlic bread with. Now back to our program.
Im probably not as bad as I appear here on this forum.

I laugh more than I rant.

Last night my brother came by and said he was annoyed the the churches have finally won on the gay issues.

I asked him what he meant.

and he said... "Look at the news, all these ballot measures and court cases to allow same sex marriage, and right along with them measures to make marijuana legal"

I said... "so"

He replied "So the churches finally get their way, Homosexuals are to be stoned!"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188017 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188018 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Im probably not as bad as I appear here on this forum.
Yes, you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188019 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Im probably not as bad as I appear here on this forum.
I laugh more than I rant.
Last night my brother came by and said he was annoyed the the churches have finally won on the gay issues.
I asked him what he meant.
and he said... "Look at the news, all these ballot measures and court cases to allow same sex marriage, and right along with them measures to make marijuana legal"
I said... "so"
He replied "So the churches finally get their way, Homosexuals are to be stoned!"
Tell him not to quit his day job.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188020 Apr 10, 2013
Warning! True marriage equality being discussed! Get out plenty of "Off Topic" judge-it's, Big D et al will need them.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188021 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell him not to quit his day job.
Well he hasn’t quit his day job, but he is requested more and more in clubs in the area, he has a really good stand-up comic routine, better at it than I would be, and usually better than the headliner they have had.

He is the one that told me how anal sex is like spinach

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188022 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Im probably not as bad as I appear here on this forum.
I laugh more than I rant.
Last night my brother came by and said he was annoyed the the churches have finally won on the gay issues.
I asked him what he meant.
and he said... "Look at the news, all these ballot measures and court cases to allow same sex marriage, and right along with them measures to make marijuana legal"
I said... "so"
He replied "So the churches finally get their way, Homosexuals are to be stoned!"
As I was reading that, I wasn't sure where it was going. Then I got to the punch line. Bazinga! Funny.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188023 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So Big D, should polygamy b legal? We wouldn't want to stay in the dark ages, now would we?
Let me predict Big D's answer will be something like-

"Yes it should be legal because I realize it would be hypocritical to say otherwise so it should be legal even though polygamists use polygamy to commit their crimes of child rape and welfare fraud and no one wants it and it has a very very bad image and Frankie is not carrying signs for it."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188024 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well he hasn’t quit his day job, but he is requested more and more in clubs in the area, he has a really good stand-up comic routine, better at it than I would be, and usually better than the headliner they have had.
He is the one that told me how anal sex is like spinach
Requested at more and more Modesto comedy clubs! YUK!YUK!YUK! Good one!

Please don't tell us about anal and spinach. Please.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188025 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As I was reading that, I wasn't sure where it was going. Then I got to the punch line. Bazinga! Funny.

Yeah he is pretty funny

But it is all in the timing of how he says it. It doesn’t come across as funny here.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188026 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah he is pretty funny
But it is all in the timing of how he says it. It doesn’t come across as funny here.
Right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188027 Apr 10, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say anything about excluding bisexuality or panseuality? Nope!
Si if homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are those other sexualiites also not disorders?
Of course no one needs government sanction to find a partner. There's just that recognition that one wants to spend the rest of their life and not worry about interventions of relatives on matters like end of life decisions and contact.
One does not need a marriage license do that, nor is there a state obligation to recognize any, and all, adult personal intimate relationships.

[QUOTE
I dunno why it is necessary to go over this stuff repeatedly. Gaining access to marriage on a national level precludes the need to get all states on the same page over the matter, thus reducing the complexity of all the other contracts that get suggested from time to time.
[/QUOTE]

"Access to marriage"? The historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious conjugal marriage of husband and wife, present across time and place? So your suggestion is we should alter that concept so two men/women can have a contract with each other, recognized nationwide. Is that a fair assessment?
Now if you want to take AKpilot's stance and say the fed ought to stay out of all marriages, then that is a horse of a different color and the only valid argument against taking this to a national level rather than keeping it in individual states. But that means us heterosexuals have to give up the enumerated federally granted benefits that come with legal marriage contracts.
"Us heterosexuals"? How about us men AND women regardless of self identified sexual orientation. A opposite sex mixed orientation couple would also have to give up the bennies too. Not everyone fits so neatly into the hetero, or homo, box.
Marriage recognises my union with my wife
Exactly, husband and wife, just like me.
and I see no reason it shouldn't recognise the union of my nephew and his partner of several years.
As long as his partner is a woman, he gets the same marriage license as you and I.
BTW, they hold a valid Maryland marriage license. Sooo, they're married and those of us who know them recognise this fact as does the state of Maryland.
Valid based on what? A state could grant two same sex adult siblings a license too. The state can grant any license it so chooses.
Social progress doesn't have any bearing on facts of life or biology, but it does get involved in the state's interest in marriage.
What is that interest based on, at its most fundamental basis? The union of husband and wife, in essence the sexual union there of and what it produces. That is why marriage exists, not individual marriages, nor the motive as to why people marry, but the recognition of the institution itself. Otherwise, why would it matter who marries who?
Whether you agree or not, this is a matter of fact in a growing number of states. Social progress separates us from the rest of the species that inhabit this planet.
okayyyyyyyyy
Or do you think it would be okay if someone bigger and badder than you entered your home and threw you out, killed your children, and took your wife for his own?
Huh? What in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, are ya talking about SheeVoH?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188028 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>"Us heterosexuals"? How about us men AND women regardless of self identified sexual orientation. A opposite sex mixed orientation couple would also have to give up the bennies too. Not everyone fits so neatly into the hetero, or homo, box.
I agree in part,( although you will disagree with how I agree ) there should be no difference, benefits and recognitions should all be applied equally regardless of the orientation of the marriage.

I never liked the term “African American” for example, they are Americans... period, regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin. I don’t see the need for a qualifier

Same with Homosexuals, they are married, not same sex marriage or homosexual marriage... it is just a marriage... period, same rights and benefits, no qualifier needed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188029 Apr 10, 2013
Part 2
Sheesh void of hate:
Most women can't stand up to pee, so your urinal argument is a bit of a red herring.
Cute that you should mention a fish and women in the same sentence. At lease you didn't call it a red tuna. The point is men and women are different. A gay man, regardless of how manly or girly he may be, uses the same bathroom as you or I. A lesbian woman, regardless of how butchie she may be, or femmine, goes to the gynecologist, not the proctologist.
Gay men do find themselves attracted to other gay men in the same fashion that I am attracted to women.
It is what it is.
It is sexual in nature but not wholly sexual. There is a huge emotional component.
It is what it is, agreed.
Otherwise why not just use prostitutes if all you're main goal is getting laid?
That's not the main goal. There is a byproduct of sexual relations between men and women, they're called children. Marriage serves as societies mean of connecting men, and women, with not only each other, but with what ever children they may have. Its not simply about the adults. If sex didn't make babies, why would it matter who married who, are even recognize marriage at all? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying?

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
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) Jun 22 Justin 21
News Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Jun 17 Icurn2000 158
Beware of Kenn Grey Jun 12 Philanthropic soc... 1
News Ap Photos: Highlights of the 2016 race for the ... Jun 5 TRUMP YES 3
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Jun 2 Fucklove88 15
Local Politics Do you approve of Yvonne Parks as Mayor Pro-Tem? (Aug '12) May '16 Rocky 2
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) May '16 mimic lopes 51
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages