Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182078 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I attack hypocrisy. Most opponents of SSM on this thread are much less hypocritical than supporters of SSM on this thread. Except me!
I support true marriage equality.
Really? Do you think children should have marriage equality?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182080 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
YUK!YUK!YUK! Giggling Joe Biden!
Biden would boost the ratings of all the late night shows
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182081 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Do you think children should have marriage equality?
No, do you?

I'll be sure to specify adults more often than I have been in the future so you don't try to use it as an argument against true marriage equality again.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182082 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. They're saying it's not intended to legalize poly, which is already illegal.
They said we'll let SSM slip by but no way poly! They liked the "A" part of "a man and a woman" but not the gender part. Just like you!
I don't think either part is fair.
Tough, ain't it?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182083 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read the post about the Cali. Supreme court and polygamy????? Frank, read it
Sure, they wanted to make damn sure they weren't legalizing polygamy.

Did you read prop 8?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182084 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, do you?
I'll be sure to specify adults more often than I have been in the future so you don't try to use it as an argument against true marriage equality again.
What's "true" about it if it excludes certain groups?

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182086 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, they wanted to make damn sure they weren't legalizing polygamy.
Did you read prop 8?
Why yes I did, that is why I posted the Supremes thoughts.
The voter initiative was clearly tailored to exclude gay couples. Given that Polygamy has not been legal for more than a century, and the laws regarding it are intact. Little can be said to change it. Again, Same sex marriage was legal, Prop 8 was designed to remove that law. Can you say discrimination?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182087 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
Future Battle: Slippery Slope To Polygamy?
Some legal analysts feel that judicial action to legalize same-sex marriage will create precedent that could lead to the overturn of polygamy laws. Justice Scalia once stated, in a dissent to a case striking down a sodomy law, that following that decision all morals legislation was vulnerable to attack: first homosexual sex, then “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”
However, due to the way the California Supreme Court has classified sexual orientation, there is a significant difference between the same-sex marriage and polygamy. In deciding In Re Marriage Cases, the court declared that laws based on sexual orientation would receive “strict scrutiny” review, meaning that such laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. As polygamists are not a protected class, like homosexuals, they do not enjoy that level of review. Instead, the government may limit polygamy by proving simply that such laws are a rational method of achieving a legitimate government interest. The method need not be the least restrictive method of achieving that interest. The government interests in prohibiting polygamy that are often asserted are: the danger of statutory rape associated with polygamy; the danger of incest; and the subjugation and abuse of women in such relationships. These are legitimate interests and a ban on polygamy is generally seen as a rational means of accomplishing those ends.
Sexual Orientation? Heterosexual, homosexual , and bisexual..... so if people can marry according to their orientation....
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182088 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What's "true" about it if it excludes certain groups?
Everyone understands marriage is not for children. Even prop 8 said man and woman. That excludes children, Miss Thing. No one is arguing for marriage of children, calm down.

Is that your best argument? It's really desperate.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182089 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Tough, ain't it?
Yep. That's how bigots roll, they rub defeat in good when they can. Just like they did in the earlier days of SSM.

Let's cut through your bullsh!t. Tell us why you are against poly marriage.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182090 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, do you?
I'll be sure to specify adults more often than I have been in the future so you don't try to use it as an argument against true marriage equality again.
If you are for true equality in marriage, why should 12 year old kids be omitted? It seems that its allowed in other countries that allow polygamy.

http://www.google.com/url...
Edgar

Spring, TX

#182091 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, they wanted to make damn sure they weren't legalizing polygamy.
Did you read prop 8?
Hell, did YOU? It nowhere mentions polygamy.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182092 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone understands marriage is not for children. Even prop 8 said man and woman. That excludes children, Miss Thing. No one is arguing for marriage of children, calm down.
Is that your best argument? It's really desperate.
Then stop making statements you don't mean.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182093 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. That's how bigots roll, they rub defeat in good when they can. Just like they did in the earlier days of SSM.
Let's cut through your bullsh!t. Tell us why you are against poly marriage.
Tell us why you think Prop 8 has anything to do with polygamy, when the California Supreme Court says it does not.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182094 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell, did YOU? It nowhere mentions polygamy.
What don't you understand about "Marriage is a man and a woman only"?

Does it say "men and women only"?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182095 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop making statements you don't mean.
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.

You're grasping at straws.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182096 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you understand about "Marriage is a man and a woman only"?
Does it say "men and women only"?
What don't you understand about: "...does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182097 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>If you are for true equality in marriage, why should 12 year old kids be omitted? It seems that its allowed in other countries that allow polygamy.
http://www.google.com/url...
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.

You're grasping at straws.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182098 Mar 1, 2013
When SCOTUS puts this heinous proposition to rest, I hope that lawsuits will be initiated against NOM and Protect Marriage.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182099 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.
You're grasping at straws.
Don't blame me for your inability to clearly express your stupid opinions. You never take responsibility for anything, do ya?

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.

Tehachapi Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AVC training people to work at Northrop... Dec 1 Tony 1
beautiful pit is going to be put down needs hom... (Mar '12) Dec 1 BidgeBrendanB 4
Stacy Barker and Brendon Borrelli (Jun '11) Dec 1 BidgeBrendanB 5
My Experience With Villalobos Dog Rescue Center (Feb '11) Nov 26 Lori 49
Deputies Investigate Homicide in Antelope Nov 24 Now_What- 2
Keep a Word, Drop a Word! (Apr '12) Nov 18 _Zoey_ 218
News 'Something has to change' for High Desert Farme... Nov 13 Raquel 1

Tehachapi Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Tehachapi Mortgages