Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,446

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.

Full Story
Mind Full

Monrovia, CA

#179129 Feb 9, 2013
Once City Hall and a handful of Council members have made it a pattern to lie to the residents and spin complete fabrications, what do they expect?

The only way for Glendora, California to fix the problems about complete public mistrust is to fire the city manager, the Jeff K., hire a new legal firm and never let Douglas Tessitor, Gene Murabito, Joseph Santora and Karen Davis have anything to do with the city ever again.

The day they leave the city won't be soon enough for most if not all of the cities honest residents.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179130 Feb 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignorant moron, do you think that your shallow bullshit fools anyone ? you are seriously an embarrassment to all the people on this forum. "Private" ? If, and I say "if", you took a "private" poll, Why would you even bring it up in public ? you are seriously the most moronic ass-puppet in here. Childish evasions that even Chongo would be embarrassed to use.
Jizzybird is quite the dummy ain't he? Too funny!

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179131 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jizzybird is quite the dummy ain't he? Too funny!
Keep piling on the votes flunkie

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179132 Feb 9, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>...and? Were you making a point?

Just pointing out that silly mantra of "procreation is not required for marriage", used by some SSMers

[QUOTE]
Do you think if gay couples marry, opposite sex couples will stop having babies? Will they stop enjoying the benefits of marriage?
Well if the gay couple is of the opposite sex, they can make babies the same way other opposite sex couples do, good ole coitus. That way jr is born to his/her own married mom and dad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179133 Feb 9, 2013
http://constitutionschool.com/2012/09/27/is-t...

Is the Legalization of Polygamy Next?

As an increasing number of American citizens grow more comfortable with the notion of gay marriage (46% of Americans), more and more individuals are seeking to legally challenge the very framework of this age old institution.

In addition to the calls by many to allow people of the same sex an opportunity to be legally wed, there are growing numbers of many old-style Mormons seeking legal immunity to engage in polygamy; an illegal practice of having multiple spouses.

This past summer, Jeff Buhman, the chief prosecutor for Utah County, Utah, made a decision that went largely unreported by many in the mainstream media – a decision to no longer prosecute anyone in the county who may be guilty of this practice; Buhman also went a step further, by placing legal roadblocks for any future county attorney who may attempt to prosecute said individuals:

“[Buhman’s decision is] intended to prevent future prosecution of polygamists in Utah County for just the practice of polygamy,”

The statements are part of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the state’s bigamy law filed by Kody Brown and his four wives: Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn.

An attorney for the Brown family had the following to say:

“While I am pleased that the prosecutors are now promising to leave this family alone, the decision will not end our challenge to the state law,” said Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jonathan Turley in a blog entry posted Thursday, expressing his “great relief for the Brown family that this long-standing threat has been finally lifted.”

According to the Brown’s attorney, the state’s law banning multiple spouses violates their constitutional right to privacy and religious freedom.

The new legal trend has the potential to decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

“If homosexuals are free to be married, then why can’t we? We have much more history on our side than they do.” stated one Mormon-fundamentalist claiming to being married to three different women.
FogHorn Fuds

Monrovia, CA

#179134 Feb 9, 2013
Is this the annual 'fudders' meeting?

Because you all sure come up with some pretty stupid reasons to post.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179135 Feb 9, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Keep piling on the votes flunkie
They're imaginary dummy! Only you see them. No one else does because you made it all up like some silly little kid.

But let's get serious for a moment. Why are you against equal rights?
FogHorn Fuds

Monrovia, CA

#179136 Feb 9, 2013
They are called 'fudds' because their posts fall tot he floor like a fudd.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179141 Feb 10, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They're imaginary dummy! Only you see them. No one else does because you made it all up like some silly little kid.
But let's get serious for a moment. Why are you against equal rights?
I would love to debate you, unfortunately you fail to meet the minimum requirements of intelligence. 60 votes and climbing, atta boy Frankieeee

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179142 Feb 10, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jizzybird is quite the dummy ain't he? Too funny!
I am thinking about putting in a new kitchen. After all I am in your head rent free.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179143 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Keep piling on the votes flunkie
I Am! It's great being in your head rent free!

You even created a registered profile I see. "Frankie Jizzo" So creative. Also of course a thread just for me!

You are now obsessed with Frankie! How do you like it so far?

Too Funny!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179144 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I would love to debate you, unfortunately you fail to meet the minimum requirements of intelligence. 60 votes and climbing, atta boy Frankieeee
It's the other way around.

And you'd lose a debate with me that is the real reason you just use ad hominem.

And of course the one arguing against equal rights (you) always loses!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179145 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I am thinking about putting in a new kitchen. After all I am in your head rent free.
Talk about off topic! But that's cool. I had my kitchen in my CA place remodeled last year. I recommend it, worth the cost, especially when you sell. You'll get your money back.

And every time you go into your new kitchen, you'll think of me! I am now in your big dopey tin foil hatted head to the point of obsession! Woo HOO!

I mean starting a troll thread because you are frustrated that you are too dumb to debate me? That's defeat, son!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179146 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I am thinking about putting in a new kitchen. After all I am in your head rent free.
Relax Fruitcake! Let's try and calm you down and get you back to the topic. Why are you against same sex marriage?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179148 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Keep piling on the votes flunkie
So what's your imaginary vote count at now?

My imaginary vote count is Frankie 100, Jizzy 0. Does that jive with yours? Let me know.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#179149 Feb 10, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's your imaginary vote count at now?
My imaginary vote count is Frankie 100, Jizzy 0. Does that jive with yours? Let me know.
YUK!YUK!YUK!
What are we voting for?
Brief flight

Monrovia, CA

#179150 Feb 10, 2013
I've seen this headline before, 30 seconds over tokyo?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179151 Feb 10, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
What are we voting for?
It's an imaginary vote in Jazybird58's head only.

He got so frustrated because he's too stupid to debate me that he created a troll thread, complete with a fake imaginary vote count!

It kind of backfired on the dummy! Come on over and cast your imaginary vote.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TUNATFE41...
Flight times

Monrovia, CA

#179152 Feb 10, 2013
I've seen this headline before, 60 seconds over tokyo?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179153 Feb 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the polygamist wearing a sign or a t-shirt with the word "polygamist" on it? How does the JP know? Suppose the polygamist is asking to marry another person?
That's the whole point. Polygamist or not, a person can only marry one person. Equal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So that restriction should be maintained, but not the opposite sex restriction?
Pay attention this time, dummy. I didn't say the number restriction should or shouldn't be maintained. I'm just pointing out it's not an equal rights issue. Should the number restriction be maintained? Well, why not start a forum on polygamy and discuss that issue?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you cannot come up with a valid reason why same sex marriage should be legalized, but not plural marriage. Too legally complex perhaps? Complexity can be overcome.
Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.

Plural marriage? Why not start a forum about the topic?
Could it be you really don't give a damn about it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why is the opposite sex requirement, discriminatory, but not the one spouse at a time?
Jesus H, take notes this time...
The opposite sex requirement gives men and women unequal rights WRT the gender of the person they can marry. The one spouse at a time requirement gives everybody the same rights WRT the number of people they can marry. That doesn't mean it's a good requirement, just not an equal rights issue.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you start a forum and talk about the issues that would be involved in plural marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do SSM advocates see the big picture? Is it possible to see beyond the rainbow colored glasses? Gay folks say change marriage for them, polygamists say change marriage for them. At what point does it no longer matter who, legally, marries who? Why bother regulate marriage at all?
Slippery slope and red herring. Slippery herring? Sounds kinda suggestive. Red slope? Not much better.

Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
Ever consider starting a forum to talk about the issues involved in plural marriages?

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.

SoMa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Black men disrespected in Mayor Ed Lee's State ... Mar 2 cogent 4
A Walking Tour of San Francisco Feb 26 terrygadoury1985 1
Lunar New Year: Where to banquet in San Francisco Feb 23 michaeltrett88 1
Are we dumping the homeless? Feb 20 Birds Landing Bob 7
Optometrist passes vision on to his son Feb 19 Angela K 1
Sex, nudity and erotica in SF Feb 10 Hunny Lemon 3
'I moved from Brooklyn to San Francisco for thi... Jan '15 Frost quakes 1

SoMa News Video

San Francisco Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

SoMa People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:23 pm PST