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.

Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196446 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn't just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.
Excerpt from Pietro's link for all the clowns that scream at me when I mention this simple fact. Big D especially.
Relax, take it easy, put your feet up, have a beer. Now why are you so upset?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196447 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn't just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.
Excerpt from Pietro's link for all the clowns that scream at me when I mention this simple fact. Big D especially.
Take a chill pill. Why are you so mad? Hey post about Poly. I am still waiting.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196448 Jun 17, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Rizzo.....After the ruling I will have no need to come to this thread. You can ramble on about ANYTHING you want to! Have fun.=)
As you may have noticed, I don't need your permission. Thanks for playing. Even though you have no argument you gave it your best shot! But failed.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196449 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Take a chill pill. Why are you so mad? Hey post about Poly. I am still waiting.
WOW! The old "why you mad" schtick, that might work. g

Getting even pretty desperate eh Jiz? What a loser.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196450 Jun 17, 2013
I find it difficult to see Jizzy's 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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196451 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Relax, take it easy, put your feet up, have a beer. Now why are you so upset?
If I got any more relaxed, I'd turn to rubber. How about yourself? You seem upset.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196452 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to marr your boyfriend, again great. I think you two should. I am glad to see that you see the problem.
Moron says what?

Here comes the homophobia. Nice!
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196453 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW! The old "why you mad" schtick, that might work. g
Getting even pretty desperate eh Jiz? What a loser.
Frank, calm down. Put your special helmit on and STOP licking the windows.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196454 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Flunkie are you going to talk about Poly marriage or not?
Yes. I have been. Despite your trolling. We'll tell you about it all tomorrow when you sober up.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196455 Jun 17, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.

Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196456 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see Jizzy's 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.
Frankie, I just don't see why we should change existing laws for the sake of one religion. If we do that then the flood doors will open. 1797 different religions, sects and tree worshipers wanting different terms. Nope let that one be.

Its all in the Constitution, if you care to read.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196457 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Moron says what?
Here comes the homophobia. Nice!
I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196458 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Frankie, I just don't see why we should change existing laws for the sake of one religion. If we do that then the flood doors will open. 1797 different religions, sects and tree worshipers wanting different terms. Nope let that one be.
Its all in the Constitution, if you care to read.
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.

What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?

Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.

"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196459 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
I don't want to marry anyone. Why do you keep saying stupid stuff like that? You are truly a moron. A buffoon!

I'll tell you why you do it. Because you're mad and you have no argument.

Hope that helps! Always ask for help. Remember! You are an idiot.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196460 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects of Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise are not limited to traditional notions of
worship, but extend to other behaviors that may be motivated by religious beliefs.8 Religious law
often times is not limited to traditional worship or religious activities. Rather it may extend to
day-to-day practices and behaviors. That is, Christianity may require attendance of religious
services on Sunday but it also instructs its followers to perform charitable acts toward other
individuals. Under Christian religious law, an individual’s exercise of Christian beliefs may
include both going to church and assisting one’s neighbors. Similarly, in compliance with sharia,
Muslims should not only observe daily prayers, but also conduct financial dealings consistent
with their religious law.9 This understanding of the broad scope of many religious laws is
significant when considering how these laws may intersect with the secular legal system.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196461 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
Oh that's what moron said. Marry my boy frind sic ha ha so funny.

That doesn't prove your argument. What was your argument again?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196462 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.
What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?
Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.
"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
"Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/ ... "

You did post this didn't you ?

" engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith"

We don't make laws to suit ANY RELIGION.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196463 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.
What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?
Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.
"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196464 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects of Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise are not limited to traditional notions of
worship, but extend to other behaviors that may be motivated by religious beliefs.8 Religious law
often times is not limited to traditional worship or religious activities. Rather it may extend to
day-to-day practices and behaviors. That is, Christianity may require attendance of religious
services on Sunday but it also instructs its followers to perform charitable acts toward other
individuals. Under Christian religious law, an individual’s exercise of Christian beliefs may
include both going to church and assisting one’s neighbors. Similarly, in compliance with sharia,
Muslims should not only observe daily prayers, but also conduct financial dealings consistent
with their religious law.9 This understanding of the broad scope of many religious laws is
significant when considering how these laws may intersect with the secular legal system.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Learn how to cut and paste and post links for chrissakes. Make it easy for your reader also you won't appear as such a moron.

Aside from the fact that some religions are polygamous, what other reasons do you have to deny marriage equality? We understand the "I don't like their religion" one. What other ones do you have?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196465 Jun 17, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
Why don't you just cut and paste the whole wikipedia Jiz, then get back to us when you're done.

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
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) 4 hr c s ohio 16
News Teen boy alleges school district concealed sexu... Thu actionvideo 1
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
Local Politics Do you approve of Yvonne Parks as Mayor Pro-Tem? (Aug '12) May '16 Rocky 2

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages