Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,148

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192548 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
relax footloops
my reply wasn't to the subject of same sex marriage but the difference of how conservatives and liberals think
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your evidence of such assertions.
Actually studies have shown that Liberals are more likely to process new data and make decisions on facts as opposed to conservatives who once they make up their mind, they are less likely to process new facts/data and change their position
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci ...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03 ...
" Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/ ...
Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.
The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgaxs_conse...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192549 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have formed two separate questions, even though you are generally asking only one.
1.) Should monogamy socially be relevant to marriage? And the answer is "I don't know". Other cultures, currently and historically, have embraced non-monogamous marriages. Obviously it worked (works) for them.
2.) Is monogamy a VALUE for First World, industrialized countries? And the answer to that question is an almost unanimous "YES!"
For whatever reason, we in large continue to value monogamy--even gay couples value monogamy.
Maybe it's a statement about our value of a "love-based" marriage system. Whereas in polygamous marriages, there is less of a "love-based" quality, and more of a utilitarian basis.
----------
Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
But monogamy is what our culture values. It places great importance on one-to-one love and trust. When that love and trust is breached through adultery, then the marriage can fall apart.
But that is a luxury that we have. Women are no longer solely dependent on men. Our laws protect women (and men) from the heartache of adultery (which is, I believe, a form of attempted polygamy).
As long as our cultures continue to value monogamy--love and trust between two people--then it is highly unlikely that polygamy will gain a foothold.
Who knows... Maybe polygamy will become legal here some day.
But it won't be because gays were given the right to marry, anymore than it won't be based on the legalization of interracial marriage.
You still refuse to accept the fact that I support same sex marriage. You argue as if I don't.

I am not afraid of Polygamy dummy! I support it. You don't seem to get that either.

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

Union City, CA

#192550 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>

...Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
Wha? If monogamy is not necessary polygamous societies would have failed? Huh?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192551 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have formed two separate questions, even though you are generally asking only one.
1.) Should monogamy socially be relevant to marriage? And the answer is "I don't know". Other cultures, currently and historically, have embraced non-monogamous marriages. Obviously it worked (works) for them.
2.) Is monogamy a VALUE for First World, industrialized countries? And the answer to that question is an almost unanimous "YES!"
For whatever reason, we in large continue to value monogamy--even gay couples value monogamy.
Maybe it's a statement about our value of a "love-based" marriage system. Whereas in polygamous marriages, there is less of a "love-based" quality, and more of a utilitarian basis.
----------
Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
But monogamy is what our culture values. It places great importance on one-to-one love and trust. When that love and trust is breached through adultery, then the marriage can fall apart.
But that is a luxury that we have. Women are no longer solely dependent on men. Our laws protect women (and men) from the heartache of adultery (which is, I believe, a form of attempted polygamy).
As long as our cultures continue to value monogamy--love and trust between two people--then it is highly unlikely that polygamy will gain a foothold.
Who knows... Maybe polygamy will become legal here some day.
But it won't be because gays were given the right to marry, anymore than it won't be based on the legalization of interracial marriage.
What harm would loving poly marriage cause you? If poly becomes legal it will be so rare you'll probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192552 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. people often complain about homosexuals being promiscuous, allowing them to enter into marriage would bring some stability into their lives.
2. we allow heterosexuals into monogamous marriages, why not homosexuals. we are just opening up a legal commitment/contract that heterosexuals enjoy to homosexuals. a woman who lived with her married partner for decades got hit with a 400,000+ tax bill from the IRS after her partner died because the IRS (FED) doesn't recognize same sex marriages, something a heterosexual couple wouldn't face...is that fair?
we are not talking about allowing gays into polygamous marriages, just as we don't allow hetero-sexual couples either
as for the other end of slippery slopes, pedophiles, bestiality...
children can not give consent
animals can not give consent
as for marrying siblings/cousins..there are plenty of scientific reasons for that dealing with genetic defects...a case study of Russian Tsarist ruling families is a prime example of that.
Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
I support SSM dummy, you're preaching to the choir. I support marriage equality and you do not.

What harm would a loving marriage of 3 adult men cause you or anyone hypocrite? How does it feel to be arguing against marriage equality?

As far as the "too complicated" argument, is denying equal protection OK if it would be complicated to grant it? And it's not complicated, the legalities could be easily worked out.
Knee Roe

Tempe, AZ

#192553 May 18, 2013
Wherever homosexuals appear in large numbers, a society soon fails. There are no exceptions.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192554 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
...Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
Modern science has debunked the myth that there are significant health problems with close relatives procreating. First cousins may marry in many states, why not siblings?

And procreation is irrelevant to marriage, right? So why can't I marry my brother?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192556 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.
When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.
People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
Bravo! Well said...."....wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so....". That's just it!
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192558 May 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes your opinion of the particular god you choose to believe in, is one thing, other believers in that God or other Gods have different opinions.
Our nations laws are above all petty religious beliefs, you can have your opinion, but you don’t get to dictate law to anyone else.
None of us do
Is it true that you have homosexual tendencies? Read it yourself, then prove it wrong! www.biblegateway.com
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192559 May 18, 2013
Oh, you don't have to if you do not want to obey.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192561 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern science has debunked the myth that there are significant health problems with close relatives procreating. First cousins may marry in many states, why not siblings?
And procreation is irrelevant to marriage, right? So why can't I marry my brother?
If you think about it, adult same sex sibling can and have formed spousal like relationships, so why deny them the bennies?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192562 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is questioning your intelligence. We are questioning your logic.
As I pointed out to your earlier, 46 years ago a Virginia lawmaker argued in the Supreme Court that interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.
In nearly half a century it has not.
Why would we believe that same-sex marriage; an act that joins only two people together, would be the basis for joining more than two people together.
Since the Loving v. Virginia trial, I can't find one case that has been brought before any court in which a plaintiff has sued on behalf of polygamy.
Loving v. Virginia didn't bring out the polygamists and neither will same-sex marriage cases.
Again, the primary reason that polygamy WILL NOT ride the coattails of same-sex marriage is because same-sex marriage continues the definition of marriage as being between TWO people.
A single lawmaker!? Really? That was before "Sister Wives". Besides interracial marriages were nothing new in this country prior to that. Civil War era NYC, white immigrant women married black men, and surprise had mixed race babies.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192563 May 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A single lawmaker!? Really? That was before "Sister Wives". Besides interracial marriages were nothing new in this country prior to that. Civil War era NYC, white immigrant women married black men, and surprise had mixed race babies.
I just don't have the energy or a thick enough skin to try to explain to these lunkheads how comparing SSM to the civil rights movement of the last century is a fallacy.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#192564 May 18, 2013
Knee Roe wrote:
Wherever homosexuals appear in large numbers, a society soon fails. There are no exceptions.
You just made that up. You can't come up with a single example of that happening. How would that ever work?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#192565 May 18, 2013
And still, not one rational argument against gay marriage. If you are against gay marriage, it's because of bigotry. Pure and simple.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192568 May 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
And still, not one rational argument against gay marriage. If you are against gay marriage, it's because of bigotry. Pure and simple.
And all bigotry comes from the Bible. We have all been influenced by it, even a few atheists carry some baggage around with them.

JESUS: Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192569 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't have the energy or a thick enough skin to try to explain to these lunkheads how comparing SSM to the civil rights movement of the last century is a fallacy.
What you fail to realize and accept is that a larger population was using dirty underhanded tricks to stop blacks from exercising their rights.

Women went through a similar thing when they wanted to be equal to their husbands and exercise their right to vote.

Now homosexuals want the government to protect their right to engage in peaceful conduct with other consenting adults.

And slavery is a Christian thing, and the Bible tells us women are as much below their husbands as the husband is below Jesus, you pew warmers are afraid you are going to lose on homosexuality as well.

Well, yes, you ARE going to lose.

After homosexuality is as accepted as blacks are accepted and women continue to vote KKKristians have nothing left to lose. Nothing, you have lost it all.

And I tell you, I am happy to be a part of hammering nails into the christian coffin.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192570 May 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo! Well said...."....wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so....". That's just it!
Bravo? This guy keeps saying that he supports polygamy and same-sex marriage. Do you agree with him?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192571 May 18, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it true that you have homosexual tendencies? Read it yourself, then prove it wrong! www.biblegateway.com
The Bible is an collection of ancient Jewish puppet plays.

GOD: 2 Kings 18:27, "...that they may eat their own dung and drink their own pisss with you..."

God was joking KeS, you can stop eating and drinking now.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192572 May 18, 2013
KeS wrote:
Oh, you don't have to if you do not want to obey.
You don't obey because you hate God and give him the finger:

For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.

First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
•and (i) Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)

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
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 29 min Brew In 28,357
Christmas 2014 and New Year’s 2014 Closures and... 1 hr James Macpherson 1
Guitarist Adam Levy Joins LA College of Music a... 1 hr James Macpherson 1
Los Angeles Company Verifi Provides Hillsides w... 1 hr James Macpherson 1
South Pasadena Police Weekly Crime Summary 1 hr James Macpherson 1
US Forest Service to “Keep it Wild” with Histor... 1 hr James Macpherson 1
Faking it the green way: Artificial grass looks... (May '09) 6 hr Fyi 18

South Pasadena News Video

South Pasadena Dating
Find my Match

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

South Pasadena News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in South Pasadena

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:42 pm PST