Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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

Hayward, CA

#192463 May 17, 2013
Rump Ranger USA wrote:
My butt hurts! But it's not my fault! I'll never take responsibility for my own actions! I'm a protected species!
Celebrate Diversity!
Homophobe!
Do you know Rump Wrangler?

How about Heywood Jablomie? Harry Nutzak? Dickens Cider?

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192464 May 17, 2013
For a chuckle ask the female security person to page Mike Hunt.

"Paging Mike Hunt. Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?"

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192465 May 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
For a chuckle ask the female security person to page Mike Hunt.
"Paging Mike Hunt. Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?"
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192466 May 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?
YUK!YUK!YUK! Porkys! A fine bit of Americana.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192467 May 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?
Yes, everyone in town!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192468 May 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it has, documented in dozens of species, a very normal natural occurrence in nature.
The problem here is that we are trying to talk to the uneducated. Ignorance in this day and age is a choice, and we can’t teach people that choose to be ignorant.
You should start a gay animals thread. This is a thread about bla bla bla.. You know the drill.

Poly MARRIAGE is off topic, but gay frogs ain't in Big Dope happy happy la la land.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192469 May 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and so far.. everything you have said has been incorrect
I think you're getting off topic. The initial comeback was about what God's word say's about homosexuality and same sex marriages.

The fact is God detests these practices. Then it was suggested that the overturning of the ban was due to it being unconstitutional when in fact it is not. Same sex unions are not right any way you slice it.
Singing

San Dimas, CA

#192470 May 17, 2013
Just a sing-song away today, any way.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192472 May 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you include religious elements in your posts.
This comment is off topic the point that was being made is what the creator's view of same sex or homosexual & lesbian practices are, using the Holy Bible as a reference to see for yourself what God's word says on the subject. www.biblegateway.com not religion but facts.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192473 May 17, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
This comment is off topic the point that was being made is what the creator's view of same sex or homosexual & lesbian practices are, using the Holy Bible as a reference to see for yourself what God's word says on the subject. www.biblegateway.com not religion but facts.
You should always check with Big D to see if your posts meet his standards before posting.

P.S. Mine never do!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192474 May 17, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
This comment is off topic the point that was being made is what the creator's view of same sex or homosexual & lesbian practices are, using the Holy Bible as a reference to see for yourself what God's word says on the subject. www.biblegateway.com not religion but facts.
You mentioned God. And posted a bible link. All hell is gonna break loose when Big D gets back! He's gonna have a conniption fit. WOO~HOOOO!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192475 May 17, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
This comment is off topic the point that was being made is what the creator's view of same sex or homosexual & lesbian practices are, using the Holy Bible as a reference to see for yourself what God's word says on the subject. www.biblegateway.com not religion but facts.
Different believers in different creators have different opinions, in fact even believers in the same creator have different opinions.

There are literally thousands of even Christian churches that wish to preform same sex marriages and their religious freedom is being denied.

You can go make rules for your little sect, and have your followers abide by those rules, but you don’t get to dictate anything to the rest of us.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192476 May 17, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're getting off topic. The initial comeback was about what God's word say's about homosexuality and same sex marriages.
The fact is God detests these practices. Then it was suggested that the overturning of the ban was due to it being unconstitutional when in fact it is not. Same sex unions are not right any way you slice it.
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
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192477 May 17, 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
You forgot to tell him you will fight for truth justice and the Big D way! Because you are a patriot! And anyone who disagrees with you is not. Stuff like that. Although I have a feeling it's coming...
Streched necks

San Dimas, CA

#192480 May 17, 2013
Send them back to their country of origin and let them destroy there own Muslim country.

At 13, Emma still played with dolls and loved nothing more than walking with her pet spaniel, Yet by her 14th birthday,.

Her innocent childhood was over, Emma had been raped and sexually abused in the most grotesque manner by 54 MUSLIM men in Britain.

They have sex rings using white females..Only..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192481 May 17, 2013
Polygamy and DOMA
By mark goldfeder

Published: May 11, 2013 01:01AM
Updated: May 11, 2013 01:01AM

While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamy’s core institution and whom it should include. Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn’t just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.

The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.

Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in “ethical non-monogamy”— loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

The push for non-monogamous marriage reveals some unexpected bedfellows: Everyone from former presidents to the remarried elderly couple next door. Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their ‘exclusive, dyadic relationships,’ producing a form of de facto polygamy. Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.

The rise of no-fault divorce has made “polygamy on the installment plan” more and more common for adults of all ages. Whether it’s de facto polygamy in the form of adultery, or serial polygamy with no-fault divorce, we as Americans have already broken the sanctity of the “couple.”

While some believe that plural marriage could lead to harm against women, regulation would protect them. And what about egalitarian polygamy, based on adult consent? Is it inherently abusive? Or more abusive than many “traditional” marriages based on patriarchal domination?

If the concern were third-party harms against children, why would these kids be any different than the thousands who already grow up with more than two parents in their lives? Forget stepparents, open-adoptions, extended familial networks, and other “classic” multi-parental settings. In cases of egg donors and surrogate mothers, courts have ruled that children can have three natural parents. Maybe more is even better; recent studies indicate that children in polyamorous households benefit from increased attention and diversity of role models.

Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.

Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192482 May 17, 2013
Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.

In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage “odious,” and an “offence against society.” In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature’s ability to uphold “morals-based legislation,” the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.

Since then, TV shows such as TLC’s “Sister Wives,” HBO’s “Big Love” and Showtime’s “Polyamory” have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation’s collective living room and consciousness.

With DOMA now on the table, it’s time to bring the issue back to court.

Mark Goldfeder is an adjunct professor of law and religion at Georgia State University, and a member of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.
Pessitor

San Dimas, CA

#192484 May 17, 2013
Batteries not included.
Pessitor

San Dimas, CA

#192485 May 17, 2013
Condoms for prisoners and porn stars debated at the highest levels?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192486 May 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.
In 1878, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. called plural marriage “odious,” and an “offence against society.” In Romer v. Evans (1996), and again in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent warned against legalizing same-sex marriage, noting that once the court struck down a legislature’s ability to uphold “morals-based legislation,” the ban against plural marriage would be the next thing to go.
Since then, TV shows such as TLC’s “Sister Wives,” HBO’s “Big Love” and Showtime’s “Polyamory” have done much to sway public opinion in favor of poly-ness, bringing the concept into the nation’s collective living room and consciousness.
With DOMA now on the table, it’s time to bring the issue back to court.
Mark Goldfeder is an adjunct professor of law and religion at Georgia State University, and a member of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.
In the Loving v. Virginia court case that legalized interracial marriage, the Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, argued for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.

He said, "[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage ... stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

----------

So we've heard all of this before--46 years ago.

Tell me, did interracial marriage lead to polygamy?

Didn't think so...

Come up with some new material.

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.

Studio-City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
WE HATE MEXICANS IN North Hollywood, Kids hated... (Dec '12) 2 hr Mexes are OK 15
Review: Fox Moving & Storage, LLC (Sep '15) 16 hr PaulaPFaris 36
Whats your favourite shop to make unique gifts? (Nov '15) Sat text ritter 3
News Bobbi Brown's First West Coast Beauty Boutique ... Sat beetn off 2
News Veteran who died waiting for ambulance ID'd (Jul '14) Sat Hood-cats 6
News Decomposing Body Found In Foreclosed NoHo Home (Dec '08) Sat hood-cats 8
noho full of closet racists (Dec '15) Sat hood-cats 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Studio-City Mortgages