Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
168,261 - 168,280 of 200,366 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192741
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192742
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192743
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192744
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

You can almost smell the enraged tuna as Rosie furiously mashes the smilies.
OutVoted

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192745
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Loser's are still posting here with there stupid views.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192746
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192747
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192748
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192750
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192751
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192752
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

laughing man wrote:
You can almost smell the enraged tuna as Rosie furiously mashes the smilies.
Rose_NoHo boycotts me. She used to post to me "I hate you". Then she got so frustrated it was a boycott. Then she couldn't stand it anymore and broke her promise to never respond to me again and posted her usual hateful nonsense. I'm not sure where I'm at now. I think I'm being boycotted again.

Rose_NoHo is fun!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192753
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

OutVoted wrote:
Loser's are still posting here with there stupid views.
You sure are.
OutVoted

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192754
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Loser's from Union City, Ca. are still posting here with there stupid views.

Clod doesn't even know about his own city, either.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192755
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

OutVoted wrote:
Loser's from Union City, Ca. are still posting here with there stupid views.
Clod doesn't even know about his own city, either.
You're right. I don't know much about the city my ISP is in. But I do know you're an angry dope loser.

Hope that helped!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192757
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

"Why only two?" isn't a ridiculous question. It's easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn't raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192758
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

There are a whole lot of societies in the world where polygamy is legal and normal. In fact the anthropological record suggests that the overwhelming majority of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife simultaneously.

The reflexive belief that polygamous marriages must be evil and oppressive even in societies where they are traditional is basically an expression of cultural prejudice.

Women in polygamous societies may decide to become a rich man's second wife rather than a poor man's only wife, and do not necessarily feel oppressed by that choice. Their children usually turn out well-adjusted.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192759
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

"Off topic!!!" is not a valid argument against marriage equality.
F rizzidoos

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192760
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

SkiDew, when are you going to dry up and blow away?
sheesh

Brodnax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192761
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.
You gave him the facts days ago, so repeat them. As I said before, perhaps you need a little volume, I DIDN'T READ WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE THE TRUTH. Is it so difficult for you to repeat? All I've got is that you lived in Hawaii and ran from someone you claim was crazy in order to not expose your children to them. Do you not agree that this sort of occurrence can be stressful to children? Elaborate for clarity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192762
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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.
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
You gave him the facts days ago, so repeat them. As I said before, perhaps you need a little volume, I DIDN'T READ WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE THE TRUTH. Is it so difficult for you to repeat? All I've got is that you lived in Hawaii and ran from someone you claim was crazy in order to not expose your children to them. Do you not agree that this sort of occurrence can be stressful to children? Elaborate for clarity.
No.

Smile.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 10 min Throbbing Hard On 650
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards 48 min Randy 5
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 50 min seekers 4,900
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 51 min Pole swap 7,855
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 7 hr rain or snow to slow 15,928
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 28 snodder 2,252
Review: Rich's Painting Jul 23 Spectacular job 1
•••
•••
•••
Palm Springs Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••