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
168,821 - 168,840 of 200,324 Comments Last updated 11 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193392
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you wish to have more than one wife? Do you have one now? I have noticed that you call people stupid all the time. Why do you do that? Is it because they don't agree with you? If thats the reason, may be its your ideas. Think about it for a while.
No, that's not it. It's because you really are stupid. Think about it for a while.

Alright beer bottle! Hope that helped. Remember, there are no stupid posts only stupid posters such as yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193394
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Bud Longneck wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you like gay people? Has something happened to you? Are you a Catholic? Was it a Preist. I hope you know that a Pedophile is not gay. Ask Jesus for help.
Yes. We know that male pedophiles who molest boys are not gay. We've read the rainbow handbook.

So for example if Jerry Sandusky was raping a boy in the shower ("horsing around") Jerry is not gay, but if the boy turned 18 before Jerry came, Then Jerry would turn gay at that moment.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193395
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Orem wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop Whoop
WOOO~HOOOOO!! Whoop! Whoop!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193396
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you? And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners. So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness. You want it to be an exclusive club.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
There you go again. Why do you fear polygamy or think anyone else does?
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193398
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

All of a sudden there's been a spike in smilie mashing, which can only mean that Rosie has ended her shift at the Offal House.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193399
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fear". That's that pesky little, double-sided word that you use, to marginalize our feelings against SSM, but not to be used against your "reasonably expressed" opinion that you cannot "endorse" polygamy. Right? We fear, but you do not. Did I get that right?
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T

VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193400
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
VV is arguing against marriage equality for poly using the same arguments he ridicules when used against SSM. Classic hypocrite.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193401
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you mind, awfully, describing how the re-definition of marriage is "right for America"? I'm going to need to hear some actual reasons for this grievous lie, and, perhaps, you can provide some actual benefits that ALL of us are going to receive?
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
Alex Love

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193402
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the take I get from VV too. We fear polygamy, he has decided. Totally disregarding the good people being denied marriage equality. T
VV is a hypocrite. His version of marriage is worthy, others are insignificant and not worthy. They are just a trick to deny his rights.
You are another stupid fool. I bet your family is quite embarassed by you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193403
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a bit confused with the wording you are using.
You said, "No deceit.... I stated the obvious, elimination of the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You do realize that monogamy does not include polygamy don't you?
Yesssssss......mono is not poly.
And no one is trying to eliminate marriage as a union between husband and wife.
But you are trying to eliminate the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a union of Husband and wile.
We are asking for the same rights and protections of opposite-sex married partners.
So then marry someone of the opposite sex and then you'll get the "same rights and protections". In reality what you're asking the state to do is declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
So, that would remove your emphasis on the words "sole legal definition".
Thus achieving the goal that you seek.
For the life of me I cannot understand what you fear will happen if same-sex partners are allowed to marry.
We fear the continued devaluation of marriage through its redefinition, and the possible long term consequences of that.
Men and women will still be able to marry. Children will continue to be born. Polygamy will not suddenly rush to the forefront. Life will go on.
No, polygamy won't rush in, it'll slip in on the wake of SSM. Why that would bother you, baffles me?
You guys have never said what it is that you are afraid will happen.
It's almost as though you want to childishly keep marriage a male-female union out of pettiness.
No, more of a concern for society as a whole, and for the next generation.
You want it to be an exclusive club.
As do you, you want to exclude polygamists from it.
You don't care that allowing same-gender partners to marry will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian, tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country.
Shallow... Very shallow...
Its not allowing them to marry, but changing the definition do they can marry. But, I'll ask anyway. What specific improvements do you speak of? Can they not be effected by a Civil Union structure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193408
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post, Paisan.
Grazie....nice slogan "Daddies back". I've been posting from the mobile site, so I didn't see it before now. I like it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193409
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
Ya know....."can of worms" is an apt metaphor. Yeahhhhh.....why do the SSMers suddenly get the authority to decides who gets the marriage tag, and who doesn't after they get theirs.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193410
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Alex Love wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
You sound like a man of experience, but most other men don't swallow man loads like you so no need to worry about us power trooper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193412
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I see his point perfectly. He believes in the "Double Standard", and embraces it, to his bosom, but denies this same tit to the others in the pack. We that are against SSM "fear" what his side brings to the table, but he does not "fear" polygamy, he is intellectually able to deduce the invalid nature of anothers marital choice, and to keenly discern the difference between the ability of his kind having a choice, and the other side, not being worthy to exercise the same choice. Frankly, I'm surprised that Super D, that ever-gushing vestibule of moral correctness, hasn't stepped in, to chide his brother for his bias. I'm greatly disappointed to not bear witness to the quick, phone-booth metamorphosis of the D into the manifestation of America's Majesty, and to jump in, shouting "I'll not stand by, while injustice is being served", but, there I am, witnessing the bias, that has been declared to be non-existent, again rearing its ugly head.
Against SSM = Fear.
Against Polygamy = Intellectually Righteous.
LMAO!

Ever notice Big D only posts during the hours the library is open?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193415
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure rot, my good ma....anyway. Pure rot. Heterosexuality would rule out polygamy, because, as soon as a third spouse is introduced, one or the other marital member would make it a SSM type of marriage. See my point? It takes your argument to pave the way for your ignored brothers and sisters. 1 man and 1 woman would rule out polygamy. 2 of the same gender being allowed to marry would allow for mixed couples.
Are you mad? Polygamy doesn't work that way. They don't all sleep in the same bed.

Heck, it's not uncommon for polygamist marriages to have the wives living in different houses.

It's not straight man with a group of lesbians in tow.(even though that seems to be so many straight men's fantasy)

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193417
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
First, don't take that tone with me.

Second, the standard of marriage HAS NOT always been 1 man, 1 woman. Read some history once in a while.

Finally, you think that the majority of people ALWAYS make the right decision? Ever hear of mob mentality? Ever hear of slavery? Ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? Ever hear of the "Moral Majority"? "THE MAJORITY" has gotten it wrong MANY times! Frankly, I don't give a DAMN what the majority thinks.

You don't get to vote on rights and protections that impact me without a fight!
Gongers

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193419
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Another crooked COP, oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193420
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes him feel big, fierce, and tough, to imagine us quaking in fear at anything that he mentions so casually. Like he can harness atomic power in his hands.
VV considers polygamy just a ploy against same sex marriage. How self centered is that?

Most polygamists support SSM. Most SSM advocates don't reciprocate. I guess they want to hog all the marriage equality for themselves.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193421
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mad? Polygamy doesn't work that way. They don't all sleep in the same bed.
Heck, it's not uncommon for polygamist marriages to have the wives living in different houses.
It's not straight man with a group of lesbians in tow.(even though that seems to be so many straight men's fantasy)
I encourage my wives to have sex with each other while I am gone, that way they are not tempted to go outside our family.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193425
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesssssss......mono is not poly.
<quoted text>
But you are trying to eliminate the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a union of Husband and wile.
<quoted text>
So then marry someone of the opposite sex and then you'll get the "same rights and protections". In reality what you're asking the state to do is declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
<quoted text>
Thus achieving the goal that you seek.
<quoted text>
We fear the continued devaluation of marriage through its redefinition, and the possible long term consequences of that.
<quoted text>
No, polygamy won't rush in, it'll slip in on the wake of SSM. Why that would bother you, baffles me?
<quoted text>
No, more of a concern for society as a whole, and for the next generation.
<quoted text>
As do you, you want to exclude polygamists from it.
<quoted text>
Its not allowing them to marry, but changing the definition do they can marry. But, I'll ask anyway. What specific improvements do you speak of? Can they not be effected by a Civil Union structure?
So you want gay men to marry straight women and gay women to marry straight men? How do you think the straight women and straight men are going to feel about that? Would you want your straight son or daughter entering into a sham marriage with a gay person? Do you think they would be happy?

Sometimes it's best to think things through before you spout off and sound like a jack-ass.

I think it's REALLY rich for you to be concerned about the "devaluation of marriage". Have you looked at marriages lately? Have you looked at the divorce rates? Have you looked at the monstrosities that weddings have become? LGBT people are begging to have the right to marry their partners. We would very likely do a MUCH BETTER job at holding our marriages in check than heterosexuals. We certainly couldn't do much worse.

What specific improvements? Hmmm... How about every single right and protection that heterosexual couples currently value in their legal marriage? You know, like the Family Medical Leave Act, that allows a married partner to protect his/her job if his/her spouse becomes ill and needs to be cared for over an extended period of time. And then there are things like social security benefits, hospital visitation benefits, living in base housing if your spouse is in the armed forces, Medicare benefits... I won't go into the specifics, but there are some 1,000+ rights, protections and benefits that come with marriage.

Those rights, protections and benefits give couples a quality of life.

You want them to be called "civil unions"? Again, VERY petty. You're basically saying that we'll all be equal, just call it something else. How very adult of you.

I've challenged Kimare to show me an example of two contracts that are identical in every single way possible, only they have different names. I'll extend the challenge to you.

The legal system doesn't work that way. And it shouldn't.

If we are going to have every single right, protection and benefit of marriage, then it should be called marriage. To call it something else is absolutely ridiculous.

Oh, and one final thing... I don't fear polygamy. If polygamy becomes legal, it would have no impact on me personally. It's kind of like IRS laws that only apply to multi-millionaires. They don't impact me. I don't support polygamy as a personal choice for myself. And I would be concerned if a niece or nephew of mine would want to enter into a plural marriage. I would want them to know that I don't think they are really happy relationships--that they're often fraught with difficult relationship dynamics. And I wouldn't "support" them. But I'm not going to fight against them.

That's the difference between you and I. You are fighting against SSM. I am not fighting against polygamy. I'm simply not endorsing it.

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
Review: Rich's Painting 11 hr Spectacular job 1
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards 13 hr Alice 2
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 16 hr Ocean 7,835
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) 20 hr AMan 149
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Wed Shellys Husband is Strong 635
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Tue Ronald 2,251
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Jul 21 Racjei 4,885
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 24 at 2:28AM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••