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.

Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177798 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights.
If traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender, and if the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices, then the number requirement (two and only two), is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary???? LMFAO@you I guess you think that is logical because you made it up, eh? You have no proof that one must follow the other, and you have no examples of where that has EVER taken place. JESUS TAP-DANCING CHRIST!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177799 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Drunk posting, again?
That "Lubs me some Betty White" of yours was very CRINGEWORTHY!

You were sucking up to Rose_NoHo adding a nice touch to the cringe!

So. Why do you feel poly MARRIAGE doesn't deserve the same consideration as SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

P.S. The answer is not polygamy should be illegal because it's illegal. You've already said that 20 times. It's stupid.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177800 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK!
You just wish you were a child!

( I wish I was one too )
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177801 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary????
Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.

Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177802 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary???? LMFAO@you I guess you think that is logical because you made it up, eh? You have no proof that one must follow the other, and you have no examples of where that has EVER taken place. JESUS TAP-DANCING CHRIST!
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.

There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.

There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.

Donít let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.
Rush

Columbus, NE

#177803 Jan 31, 2013
Jesus tap-dances?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177804 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Donít let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.
The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.

With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.

You, jackass, are a hypocrite.

Hope that helps!

Priceless!
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177805 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.
Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.
Really?. Do you think there is some kind of universal law that says if one part is arbitrary, all parts are arbitrary????? That is a textbook definition of a composition fallacy. Do you know what happens when you use a fallacy to make a point? Here's a clue: you failed to prove your point.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177806 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Donít let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.
lol.... I'm not bothered by him. I think he's hilarious!
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177807 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.
With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.
You, jackass, are a hypocrite.
Hope that helps!
Priceless!
Exactly where are polygamists granted "equal rights," except in your mind?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177808 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.
With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.
You, jackass, are a hypocrite.
Hope that helps!
Priceless!
Tell you what, let me read the text of the case you are bringing to the supreme court and I will weigh in on it.

Or heck, the case you are bringing to any state legislature?

Or Ballot measure

do you have that? Or are you a long nut on an internet forum?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177809 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Donít let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Let's replace "gays and lesbians" with "polyamorists" and see how it looks-

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against polyamorists, including: polyamorists do not have intimate relationships similar to monogamous people; polyamorists are not as good as homosexuals; and poly relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Do you agree with that?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177810 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.
Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.
Look up the word arbitrary, dipshit.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177811 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly where are polygamists granted "equal rights," except in your mind?
They are NOT granted equal rights Miss Thing. That is what I am trying to get into your thick head!

You are such a dummy!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177812 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Look up the word arbitrary, dipshit.
No need. I know what it means. Let me use it in a sentence! Specifying number in a marriage is just as ARBITRARY as specifying gender.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177813 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what, let me read the text of the case you are bringing to the supreme court and I will weigh in on it.
Or heck, the case you are bringing to any state legislature?
Or Ballot measure
do you have that? Or are you a long nut on an internet forum?
Again, in your dopey head there has to be a case before SCOTUS in order to believe people should have equal rights?

That's a dopey argument.

There will be some day.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177814 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
Let's replace "gays and lesbians" with "polyamorists" and see how it looks-
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against polyamorists, including: polyamorists do not have intimate relationships similar to monogamous people; polyamorists are not as good as homosexuals; and poly relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
Do you agree with that?
That isnít a ballot measure or text of a court case

show me the official stuff you are representing, ballot measure, or court case text.

I am not going to agree with something like that until I see the official text you are bringing to court.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177815 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You just wish you were a child!
( I wish I was one too )
No one cares jackass. Least of all me.

To get back on topic, on what grounds and by what logic do you insist on the traditional, arbitrary and discriminatory number of two?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177816 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That isnít a ballot measure or text of a court case
show me the official stuff you are representing, ballot measure, or court case text.
I am not going to agree with something like that until I see the official text you are bringing to court.
Again. Your insistence there must be a court case in order to discuss the legality of poly is stupid.

Your hobby is astronomy. Do you talk about space travel with your friends? Stop it. That's not allowed! You are not traveling in space so you cannot discuss it!

What a dope!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177817 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
Let's replace "gays and lesbians" with "polyamorists" and see how it looks-
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against polyamorists, including: polyamorists do not have intimate relationships similar to monogamous people; polyamorists are not as good as homosexuals; and poly relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
Do you agree with that?
I will tell you that I have no problem with it in principal, but I am very untrusting of some of the most vocal adherents of it.

It through no fault of its own, has a steeper hill to climb than Homosexual marriage in the public eye, because of the activities of the most vocal, and the most fierce adherents of it. The religious overtones of it, and their defiance of our nations laws.

I honestly do not think anything will come of it for the next couple of decades, not because it is inherently wrong, but because of the activities of most adherents of it.

The concept I have no issue with, as long as everything is consensual.

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.

South Pasadena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Did Jack Hadjinian Lie? 23 min 42 yr North Mtb r... 30
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 33 min Chuck 19,852
Meeting at Quiet Cannon Today? 40 min La Merced Dude 32
News Council rejects Kare offer (Sep '08) 43 min Fatty2 276
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr tom wingo 29,642
News Montebello City Council votes 3-2 to give city ... 2 hr just saying 87
Where is my friend??? 8 hr Stamp88824 1
More from around the web

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]