Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#182064 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't be sad, I support marriage equality and you know it, liar Big D.
No I don’t know it.

I hear you say it, and I watch you attack every supporter of Same Sex marriage. I have watched you go from polygamy to incest the same stupid and childish tactics that the far religious right uses against Same Sex marriage.

I am not about to take you at your word
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182065 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to the California Supreme Court.
Of course, it is SO obvious that they don't know what they're talking about and should ask YOU for legal advice..... yeah, right.
Insisting "marriage is a man and a woman" doesn't restrict poly as much as it does same sex is stupid and illogical.

What don't you understand about "a man and a woman"? If they didn't have poly also in mind they would have said "men and women".

Duh!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182066 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Palin/Eastwood 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
Hillary/HOlder. 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182067 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don’t know it.
I hear you say it, and I watch you attack every supporter of Same Sex marriage. I have watched you go from polygamy to incest the same stupid and childish tactics that the far religious right uses against Same Sex marriage.
I am not about to take you at your word
You're the liar here not I. I wouldn't take your word on anything.

You suspect I am lying about supporting SSM. Because you are paranoid and think it is some sort of trick against SSM. You are wrong.

Your only argument against mine is your paranoia. That's on you. Deal with it. Or get a cogent argument against polygamy and incest marriage. The "you're lying" is SO OLD and STUPID, an not an argument at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182068 Mar 1, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Hillary/HOlder. 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
YUK!YUK!YUK! Giggling Joe Biden!

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182069 Mar 1, 2013
Future Battle: Slippery Slope To Polygamy?

Some legal analysts feel that judicial action to legalize same-sex marriage will create precedent that could lead to the overturn of polygamy laws. Justice Scalia once stated, in a dissent to a case striking down a sodomy law, that following that decision all morals legislation was vulnerable to attack: first homosexual sex, then “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”

However, due to the way the California Supreme Court has classified sexual orientation, there is a significant difference between the same-sex marriage and polygamy. In deciding In Re Marriage Cases, the court declared that laws based on sexual orientation would receive “strict scrutiny” review, meaning that such laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. As polygamists are not a protected class, like homosexuals, they do not enjoy that level of review. Instead, the government may limit polygamy by proving simply that such laws are a rational method of achieving a legitimate government interest. The method need not be the least restrictive method of achieving that interest. The government interests in prohibiting polygamy that are often asserted are: the danger of statutory rape associated with polygamy; the danger of incest; and the subjugation and abuse of women in such relationships. These are legitimate interests and a ban on polygamy is generally seen as a rational means of accomplishing those ends.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182070 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the liar here not I. I wouldn't take your word on anything.
You suspect I am lying about supporting SSM. Because you are paranoid and think it is some sort of trick against SSM. You are wrong.
Your only argument against mine is your paranoia. That's on you. Deal with it. Or get a cogent argument against polygamy and incest marriage. The "you're lying" is SO OLD and STUPID, an not an argument at all.
You it is your actions, which is why you have been called on it so many times by so many different people

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182071 Mar 1, 2013
I dunno Frank, it don't look so good
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182072 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that important?
It establishes his conservative credentials.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182073 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Insisting "marriage is a man and a woman" doesn't restrict poly as much as it does same sex is stupid and illogical.
What don't you understand about "a man and a woman"? If they didn't have poly also in mind they would have said "men and women".
Duh!
They said this instead: From the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling:


We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Clear enough?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182074 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
I dunno Frank, it don't look so good
That's what the fools said about SSM not long ago, Just a few short years.

Are you a fool too?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182075 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You it is your actions, which is why you have been called on it so many times by so many different people
I attack hypocrisy. Most opponents of SSM on this thread are much less hypocritical than supporters of SSM on this thread. Except me!

I support true marriage equality, You do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182076 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>They said this instead: From the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling:
We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.
Clear enough?
Sure. They're saying it's not intended to legalize poly, which is already illegal.

They said we'll let SSM slip by but no way poly! They liked the "A" part of "a man and a woman" but not the gender part. Just like you!

I don't think either part is fair.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182077 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the fools said about SSM not long ago, Just a few short years.
Are you a fool too?
Did you read the post about the Cali. Supreme court and polygamy????? Frank, read it
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182078 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I attack hypocrisy. Most opponents of SSM on this thread are much less hypocritical than supporters of SSM on this thread. Except me!
I support true marriage equality.
Really? Do you think children should have marriage equality?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182080 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
YUK!YUK!YUK! Giggling Joe Biden!
Biden would boost the ratings of all the late night shows
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182081 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Do you think children should have marriage equality?
No, do you?

I'll be sure to specify adults more often than I have been in the future so you don't try to use it as an argument against true marriage equality again.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182082 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. They're saying it's not intended to legalize poly, which is already illegal.
They said we'll let SSM slip by but no way poly! They liked the "A" part of "a man and a woman" but not the gender part. Just like you!
I don't think either part is fair.
Tough, ain't it?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182083 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read the post about the Cali. Supreme court and polygamy????? Frank, read it
Sure, they wanted to make damn sure they weren't legalizing polygamy.

Did you read prop 8?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182084 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, do you?
I'll be sure to specify adults more often than I have been in the future so you don't try to use it as an argument against true marriage equality again.
What's "true" about it if it excludes certain groups?

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.

Riverbank Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mrs moller Apr 24 Angry mother 1
Female teachers at Oakdale. Apr 24 Concerned friend 1
mrs moeller at oakdale !!!' read this now Apr 24 killyourselfbitch123 1
News East County E-views: Have you seen a lot of gra... Apr 21 Riverbank resident 2
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Apr 15 randy 122
News Scott Peterson family asking for donations (Jul '09) Apr 14 tom wingo 64
Legalize COCKFIGHTING in AGRI ZONINGS to fund p... (Feb '13) Apr 14 legalize gamefowl... 10
More from around the web

Riverbank People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]