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 (Page 8,846)

Showing posts 176,901 - 176,920 of199,127
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204123
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting....sounds like the Court is laying the groundwork for plural marriage. After all, plural marriage produce biological children of both the husband and wife, whereas, it's a stretch to use the word "of", as in "children of same sex couples". It would not be fair to stigmatize children of plural marriages. It's only a matter of time.
At no point has a heterosexual or homosexual couple recently brought an argument to the court asking to legalize their plural marriage.

It wasn't argued in the DOMA or the Proposition 8 case.

If polygamists wish to challenge state's laws, then they will have to start from the ground up; since no state currently recognizes plural marriages.

See, the DOMA decision was clearly based on the fact that several states have already passed marriage equality laws that support same-gender couples.

Polygamy has not been recognized in any such laws.

It may happen; it may not.

If anything, the Supreme Court's decision has made it more difficult for states to continue to ban same-gender marriages. They have found such marriages as being legitimate. They have also found that depriving the children of same-gender couples of formal recognition of their families to be harmful.

It's only a matter of time...
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204124
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
At no point has a heterosexual or homosexual couple recently brought an argument to the court asking to legalize their plural marriage.
Is it that difficult to see the handwriting on the wall?
It wasn't argued in the DOMA or the Proposition 8 case.
Actually it was raised, by a Justice, in a question.
If polygamists wish to challenge state's laws, then they will have to start from the ground up; since no state currently recognizes plural marriages.
True, first step is decriminalization. We both know the recent ruling can only help plural marriage practitioners.
See, the DOMA decision was clearly based on the fact that several states have already passed marriage equality laws that support same-gender couples.
Or several states have jettisoned marriage conjugality. "Marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian. Besides it can be applied to polygamy too.
Polygamy has not been recognized in any such laws.
It may happen; it may not.
If anything, the Supreme Court's decision has made it more difficult for states to continue to ban same-gender marriages. They have found such marriages as being legitimate. They have also found that depriving the children of same-gender couples of formal recognition of their families to be harmful.
It's only a matter of time...
Oh so it's okay to "harm" children of plural marriages? For the state to deny their biological mother AND father the right to marry? Both mom and dad are present, as opposed to their biological mother or father, and their biological mother or father's same sex partner.
Vealed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204125
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Each pork to prove your a true blue American, all other's leave the country at once.

Go back to your home country and eat sand.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204126
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-po...

It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.

You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.

The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.

What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.

The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?

In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect,“don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204128
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

How did Prop 8 work out in California? ROTFLAMO

Huge FAIL.....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204129
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't like it but you've given polygamists that "start from the ground up" already. You have paved the way.
I don't see how keeping the ban on polygamy can still be justified now that several states have abandoned the notion that heterosexual marriage is essential to social stability, why should monogamy still be insisted upon? Why is it OK to drop the gender part of "one man one woman" but not the number part?
And why can't a man marry his brother?
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
Tidie Bowl

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204130
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Tidie Bowl Frankie has it all sown up.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204134
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
Awwwwwww.....Wastey...the Glibtees are trail blazers for marriage equality for everyone. Must give ya goose bumps to know ya helped opened up the Pandora's Rainbow box o' quality. Yes sir Ree. Every kid on the team gets a trophy......or a piece of wedding cake.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204135
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it that difficult to see the handwriting on the wall?
<quoted text>
Actually it was raised, by a Justice, in a question.
<quoted text>
True, first step is decriminalization. We both know the recent ruling can only help plural marriage practitioners.
<quoted text>
Or several states have jettisoned marriage conjugality. "Marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian. Besides it can be applied to polygamy too.
<quoted text>
Oh so it's okay to "harm" children of plural marriages? For the state to deny their biological mother AND father the right to marry? Both mom and dad are present, as opposed to their biological mother or father, and their biological mother or father's same sex partner.
I can never tell where you stand on this issue (actually I can) because out of one side of your mouth you talk as though polygamy is inevitable. And then it's "Katie, bar the door!"

But then on the other hand, you talk about how banning polygamy represents inequality.

So which is it? Are you for polygamy or against it?

I still stand by my comment that this decision in no way helps polygamy.

These decisions were based on the fact that 1.) Those in favor of Prop. 8 didn't have standing. 2.) In those states where marriage is legal for same-gender partners, DOMA--which banned federal benefits and protections--was unconstitutional.

Until polygamy is legalized in a state, they're not going to be able to fight for federal benefits.

And since polygamy has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, I don't know if it will have a chance or not.

That's "their" fight.

If you want to say that it's unfair to seek marriage equality for same-gender couples but not polygamists, then that's your right.

Not being a polygamist, I'm not going to enter the fray.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204136
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I let you blow me doesn't mean I let everybody. You're special Hank. You swallow good.
Frankie, did you just "come out" as bisexual?
Gustavo

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204137
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

WasteWater wrote:
How did Prop 8 work out in California? ROTFLAMO
Huge FAIL.....
Not to worry, your troubles are just begining
Gustavo

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204138
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, did you just "come out" as bisexual?
lol... you know he did
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204141
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know and understand no such thing.
Only a ss couple who need protection to have sex would tell a heterosexual couple who need protection not to procreate that it doesn't matter.
Ss couples just don't equate to marriage. You will never be more than 'marriage LIGHT'. REALLY light. So light, relationship would qualify!
Smile.
wrong again, as legally married as you or I or anyone else.

still trying to cope? Try your standard tactic, when you can’t face reality, run to your fantasy
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204142
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your opinion, once again.
Duly noted and dismissed, once again.
Troll on, GDK.
Yes, what did you say your name was, again?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204143
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Normal people no, but fundamentalists seem to need their bible to tell them it's wrong. They are whacky that way.
<quoted text>
LOL!! Congratulations. You've joined Brian_G on the pedestal of idiocy. You are now tied to be the Village Idiot.
This liar here imagines himself to be the proclaimed expert on idiots. Wonder why this poster is so enamored on giving away his title of "Idiot"? This is the same liar that claims to not read graybox posts, but responds to Big D, a grayboxer.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204144
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's time for you to take your meds.
You can go now, we're done with you. You have no impact on anyone here.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204145
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
Traynon's ways live on ... Our president and skinny Al Sharpton will see to that!!!!
If Bonebag Al had his way, those riots that I've predicted would have already come to pass ...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204146
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying that Big D, is incorrect, his statement that the Fed, and many states recoginize same sex marriage is not true. Thats not an opinion, its a fact Buttercup.
The Fed recognizes the States right to define marriage in its own way, not the Feds mandated version of it.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204147
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Senility setting in or are you like Brian_G, and go into rewind.
That's called a joke. It's humor, that is scarce in here...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204148
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a state matter. I support whatever each state decides. You should too.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as SSM.
That was how I read it..

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 176,901 - 176,920 of199,127
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

24 Users are viewing the Santa Cruz Forum right now

Search the Santa Cruz Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Caught DBS Lying Again 3 min DBS 4
TBSC Super Troll Samantha Olden 14 min DBS 87
Archive for Jim Spring posts 23 min Dim Sum 264
Background checks for TBSC members? (Sep '13) 32 min Gorilla Fraud 38
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 1 hr Pack coal in deeper 7,330
TBSC compared to NEO NAZIS 2 hr Conan 20
cfabsc 4 hr TBSC Threats 445
•••
•••
•••
•••

Santa Cruz Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••