Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228374 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure seems simple enough. You make perfect sense. If only one man can marry one woman then one man can't marry two women and one man can't marry a man. Why would anyone use the judgeits against you like that? Would they judge you if you said today was January 24th?
Yes they will! Ah good times! I can say nice weather and they'll judge me badly. Too funny.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228375 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making a distinction that does not exist.
Poof: Can I wear a red shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: No, I want to know if I can wear a red one.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Just tell me, can I wear Red?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Damn it, answer the question.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: All I want to know is can I wear a red colored shirt, yes or not.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: You could have answered yes or no.
ALAN: OK yes.
Poof: OK now, can I wear a blue colored shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: you just don't answer questions do you .Tell me is blue OK?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: But I want to know if I can wear blue.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
etc.
Bravo. Beautiful!
Dee bowlers

Covina, CA

#228376 Jan 24, 2014
A new load of bowlers gloves just arrived.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228377 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see polygamy as a threat against gay marriage in anyway either. Maybe one of them will struggle with coming up with an answer?
Sheeple is struggling with an answer over in another thread-

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
Zippys

Covina, CA

#228378 Jan 24, 2014
Like the speed they arrive don't you?

#228377
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228379 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Miss Thing, a law that defines marriage as "ONE man and ONE woman ONLY" bans polygamy. How silly you get to argue otherwise!
The people who brought you prop 8 had polygamy in mind when they put the "ONE" in it.
How can you argue otherwise? Why do you argue otherwise? What a dope! You get so silly.
Miss Thing. You can't ban something that is already banned.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228380 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd! Exactly. They specifically had polygamy in mind.
Here is some fear mongering from some Baptists:
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
"Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships," reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. "In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well."
Over the next three days, Baptist Press will preview some of the legal arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage ahead of Tuesday's and Wednesday's oral arguments. On those days the court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: California's Proposition 8 and a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in California, while the DOMA section in question defines marriage in federal law in the traditional sense. If both are overturned, then gay marriage likely would be legalized in all 50 states.
A friend-of-the-court brief signed by 18 state attorneys general also briefly warns about the potential legalization of polygamy if gay marriage is legalized. The brief -- which supports Prop 8 -- says the traditional definition of marriage is tied to the fact that only a man and woman can reproduce, thus continuing society's very existence. The state has an interest, the brief says, to see that children are raised, ideally, by the mother and father who beget them. A mother and father in each home is "optimal for children and society at large."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/if-ga... #
If you believe ANYTHING the Baptists say, you have bigger problems to worry about. Polygamy was already banned BEFORE Prop 8.

Marriage is not required for continuing society's existence. Denying marriage to gay couples does NOTHING to enhance traditional marriage. The law served no purpose other than to discriminate against gay couples. That why they LOST in court.

"Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages," Not true. There are plenty of reasons for keeping polygamy illegal that have NOTHING to do with SSM.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228381 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making a distinction that does not exist.
Poof: Can I wear a red shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: No, I want to know if I can wear a red one.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Just tell me, can I wear Red?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Damn it, answer the question.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: All I want to know is can I wear a red colored shirt, yes or not.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: You could have answered yes or no.
ALAN: OK yes.
Poof: OK now, can I wear a blue colored shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: you just don't answer questions do you .Tell me is blue OK?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: But I want to know if I can wear blue.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
etc.
Is that your long answer for "No?"
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228382 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Miss Thing. You can't ban something that is already banned.
Sure you can. Prop 8 did.

Please be honest for once and answer my simple question. Did prop 8 allow polygamy? WE KNOW it was already against the law. Did prop 8 not say ONE man ONE woman only?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228383 Jan 24, 2014
Someone who tries to argue that "one man one woman only" isn't relevant to polygamy obviously has ulterior motives.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228384 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you can. Prop 8 did.
Please be honest for once and answer my simple question. Did prop 8 allow polygamy? WE KNOW it was already against the law. Did prop 8 not say ONE man ONE woman only?
How can you ban something that isn't there, Frankie?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228385 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Someone who tries to argue that "one man one woman only" isn't relevant to polygamy obviously has ulterior motives.
Someone who claims to have a degree in cultural anthropology that thinks polygamy is a good idea obviously has ulterior motives..... maybe even a compulsion to lie.
Honkie Tonkin

Covina, CA

#228386 Jan 24, 2014
I heard the bell ring, didn't you?

#228385
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228387 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who claims to have a degree in cultural anthropology that thinks polygamy is a good idea obviously has ulterior motives..... maybe even a compulsion to lie.
Why is a loving marriage of three consenting adults a bad idea? Suppose you and two other guys all felt you wanted to marry and form a family? Why do you want to limit your options? Why not leave the possibility open?

There was a case described in the Advocate of three gay men wishing to marry. It was touching. I am rooting for them, why aren't you? If you got to know a happy poly family you'd have to have a very cold heart to wish to deny them rights that you enjoy.

Marriage is good for society. Even marriages you for whatever selfish reasons don't approve of.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228388 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you ban something that isn't there, Frankie?
That you argue so vehemently that prop 8 didn't also ban polygamy tells us all we need to know about your motives.

I really don't see the point otherwise.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#228389 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
...Denying marriage to gay couples does NOTHING to enhance traditional marriage.
Denying marriage to polygamists does NOTHING to enhance same sex marriage.
Dry Cleaners

Covina, CA

#228390 Jan 24, 2014
I take my bowling gloves to the dry-cleaners, do you?
228389
garbonzo

Long Beach, CA

#228391 Jan 24, 2014
George Gobal wrote:
So if it's okay for a man to marry another man based upon sexual appetite, what are you going to do about a man that's bisexual? Shouldn't he be able to marry another man and a woman to satisfy his sexual appetite? I mean, after all, it only make sense. I'm all for bisexual marriages and it should be the law of the land. There is a slight problem and that's if a bisexual marries another bisexual. If that happens, then you end up with a bisexual man marrying another bisexual man and you can have two other men and two women involved which means you end up with 6 people all married together. Or how about a bisexual man marrying a bisexual woman and the bisexual man also has a man as his wife and the bisexual woman has another woman as her husband. This really gets complicated, but it's only fair to consider all these possibilities and make allowances for each and every situation.
Let's hear it for bisexual marriages!
And why would any of that matter to you? It's not your life. Live how you want and let people marry whoever they want.
garbonzo

Long Beach, CA

#228392 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Miss Thing. You can't ban something that is already banned.
LOL. But I think you meant Miss *Thang (not *Thing).
Rube

Covina, CA

#228393 Jan 24, 2014
Bowling gloves not the other type you rube.

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.

Soquel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stalker reported near Santa Cruz High School 41 min Reality Check 1
Butch Baker Molested 9 Women 4 hr DBS 8
Robert Norse is NOT a millionaire (Aug '12) 4 hr DBS 25
News Public defender seeks UCSC highway protest supp... 10 hr John Colby PhDud 2
The Truth Hurts TBSC (Nov '13) 22 hr Reality Check 32
Threats to TBSC made on Indybay (Mar '11) Mon John Colby 3AM Loon 28
TBSC Hates Women (And People In General) Mon Donny B 6
More from around the web

Soquel People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]