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

Union City, CA

#193720 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been schooled on this before, you just choose to ignore it.
Polygamists can fight for legal recognition RIGHT NOW. They don't need to wait for gay marriage to be legally recognized first, nor would that help their case.
In fact, most (Mormon) polygamists would not even want to be compared with gay couples as they are very anti-gay.
Polygamists have much more in common with traditional marriage than with gay marriage, so that door is open for them right now, as they can ask the question: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't a man marry a woman and another woman?" That is MUCH more similar and logical than saying, "If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry two women?"
Only stupid people don't see that.
If a man can marry a man why can't he marry two men?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193721 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Tony I don’t think the SCOUTS ruling will be that major
They will likely kick it back because the defenders don’t have standing ( my opinion )
Which means they will lift the stay and same sex marriages will again be legal in California
the DOMA ruling is actually more important to my mind, federal recognition.
It is a long road, the right thing will happen, but it will take some time.
I don't tend to think it will be that major, either, but we're almost guaranteed at least an incremental win.

I find it hard to believe Prop 8 will still be the law of the land in California. That's a win.

And if section 3 of DOMA is struck down, that's a great time to then go after section 2, IMO.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193722 May 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.
Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.
The child has never gotten a vote in the composition of their families.

Also, the child will readily adapt to nearly any situation.

There is no perfect family. There is no reasonable expectation of being raised in one. There is no right to one.

I will go as far as saying nearly every family has drawbacks and is responsible for some detriment in their children (including yours, obviously.)

Same sex parents is not a drawback. It's an improvement over a huge number of straight parents. That's hardly an exception.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193723 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignore what exactly?
<quoted text>
Actually it already has.
<quoted text>
Not all polygamists are Mormons. Nor is it a comparison to gay couples.
<quoted text>
Only stupid people fail to realize that gay marriage advocates, like polygamists, faced the same obstacle to legal recognition, the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife nationwide. Now that it is no more, the door is open. SSM has led the way.
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.

"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?

Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?

You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193724 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If a man can marry a man why can't he marry two men?
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?

Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193725 May 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.
Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.
If you believe that all children do better in intact families--meaning that their biological parents must raise them--then that's what you need to push for.

This would mean:

1.) No divorce for whatever reason. Divorce would be universally banned.

2.) No legal or any type of parental separation. All people must remain in the household with the person who is the father/mother of their children.

3.) No remarrying of any kind after a parent dies. All children must remain with their surviving birth parent. If that birth parent needs help rearing the children, then that help must come from within the extended family.

4.) No unwed parents. All people who have children out of wedlock MUST become married by order of the state.

5.) Adulterers who have children by different mothers/fathers must be required to maintain a double (or triple) spouse home (polygamy) so that the children will be able to be raised by both their mother and their father--even if it means sharing a father with another household.

6.) Foster care programs should cease to operate. If a child's parents dies or becomes physically/mentally unable to raise the children, then the closest living married relatives (grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings) should be required by law to raise the children.

7.) Adoption programs would also cease to exist based on #6.

8.) Couples who have sterility problems should not be allowed to adopt children--even those from outside the U.S.

9.) Abusive parents, neglectful parents, alcoholic/drug dependent parents should never lose custody of their children. Regardless of how horrific the home life of the children being raised, the kids should never be removed.

10.) Parents who break laws requiring jail time should have their sentences postponed until their children reach the age of maturity and can live on their own.

I'm sure there are other, equally ridiculous ways we can come up with to ALWAYS insure that children will have intact families.

This seems to be so very important to you. You don't care what kind of parenting skills a couple of people has, just as long as children ALWAYS stay with their parents.

It's more important to you that kids have an intact home, even when a same-gender couple has the capability of raising a needy child in a functional, supportive, loving environment.

No family is perfect, regardless of the gender combination of the parents. But scientist and common sense indicates that the parenting skills of the couple or individual who raises the kid has the largest impact on the outcome of children.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193726 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
...You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up...
There will be no floods. Those wishing to enter a poly marriage will remain so rare that you will probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193727 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
I support marriage equality, and you do not. LOL. Fricking hypocrite.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193728 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't tend to think it will be that major, either, but we're almost guaranteed at least an incremental win.
I find it hard to believe Prop 8 will still be the law of the land in California. That's a win.
And if section 3 of DOMA is struck down, that's a great time to then go after section 2, IMO.
Yep, a lot of major multi-billion dollar businesses want section 2 to go down, they want to move their people around and the different laws in different states makes that impossible.

it will happen, but it will take time
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193729 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193730 May 29, 2013
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193731 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
He doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal after…. Zero effect.

Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally don’t have a problem with poly by consenting adults.

But it doesn’t have public support the way Same sex marriage has

He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193732 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
While there certainly are gay polygamists (The Advocate had an article on them recently) there are no "polygamist couples" of any kind.

And you call me an idiot!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193733 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You should try saying something that makes sense. That didn't.
Another stupid bigot.(Cliche. Yawn.)
Hypocrite says what?

P.S. I support same sex marriage. You are very stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193734 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.

The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193735 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal after…. Zero effect.
Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally don’t have a problem with poly by consenting adults.
But it doesn’t have public support the way Same sex marriage has
He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against SSM. What don't you understand about A man and A woman? Does it say men? Does it say women? Always ask for help. Remember, there are no stupid posts, only stupid posters such as yourself.

If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was not, would polygamy be legal? No? What would be stopping it? Prop 8 would! Very good! See?

I'm not a tool in the shed and you are not smart.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193736 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh nooooooooooooooooo.....not back to being ignored by the all wise and powerful Tony C and his marriage equality flag icon. Ohhhhh the humanity.
The door is open right now, because SSM changed the rules. Before that everyone had to abide by the same rules. Marriage was a union of one man AND one woman. Polygamy has almost always existed in his country, and so did, to a degree, same sex sexual behavior. Both were viewed in a negative light to say the least.. but alas The wheels of bureaucracy move slow sometimes....SSM is now legal in a few states.....polygamists are seeking through the courts decriminalization of their marriages.....who knows maybe someday the poly people will be allowed in the rainbow clubhouse, and get their own star on the marriage equality flag.
I have found that the door to the rainbow room often slams shut when logic comes knocking.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193737 May 29, 2013
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...

Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too

BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM

The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.

Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.

Darger writes:

“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”

Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.

Darger closes by saying and asking:

“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...

“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”

We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.

Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?

UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
BoytTime

Covina, CA

#193738 May 29, 2013
That goofy Michele Backmann isn't running again, I'm happy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193739 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/5...
Dear gay marriage supporters, polygamist Joe Darger would like your backing, too
BY NATE CARLISLE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: APRIL 15, 2013 09:31AM
UPDATED: APRIL 15, 2013 11:40AM
The country waits for the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, but Utah has an older marriage debate.
Joe Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage,” offers support for gay marriage and would like the same in kind. In a column Darger wrote for Salon.com , he briefly recounts times he and his family felt persecuted for their religion and lifestyle. Darger goes on to wonder whether public sentiment will swing his way.
Darger writes:
“And now, the gay marriage debate has turned the spotlight back on us. It’s been fascinating to watch both sides strike out against polygamy. Some conservatives argue against gay marriage because it could be a “slippery slope” to polygamy — therefore abandoning their platform of limited government and calling for yet another law of government intervention. On the opposite side of the aisle, many liberals call for acceptance of gay marriage but claim that polygamy cannot be good for women and their rights, therefore it should remain illegal...”
Darger appears to be referring to a recent exchange between a conservative columnist and a liberal blogger. The only thing they seemed able to agree on was a dislike of polygamy.
Darger closes by saying and asking:
“As for me, I just don’t want anyone telling me who I can or cannot love...
“I respect any consenting adult’s right to marry whomever they want. Can you ever respect mine?”
We asked a few weeks ago whether the issue of gay marriage and polygamy was linked, but Darger might be raising a more pertinent question. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it seems there is more acceptance for gay marriage than ever.
Will that lead to acceptance of polygamy?
UPDATE: Apparently wanting to jump on the contrarian bandwagon, Slate.com published an essay Monday also making the case for legalizing polygamy. The piece, written by New York writer Jillian Keenan, points out that legalizing polygamy could help bring otherwise law abiding families out of the woodwork, theoretically making it easier to prosecute criminals. She also makes the case that it’s “hard to argue” with the idea that legalizing polygamy would preserve religious freedom and that real feminism means accepting women’s choices even if they are different. Keenan concludes:
“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.[...] So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
Bravo!

I posted a link to the Slate article but of course it was ridiculed by the people of tolerance and diversity.

Notice all the missing post numbers yesterday. I made some good arguments. Too good it seems.

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
massive chinese furniture web-site and relative... 15 hr jimheeren 1
News Advances Against Chronic Pain (Sep '12) Wed Ambct617 20
News What's Vanessa Diffenbaugh reading? Aug 19 moodylarry 1
RIP Chuck (Charles Perry lll) (Feb '12) Aug 18 D Shot 24
gutter cleaning Aug 16 randall1022 1
Is There A Police Helicopter Flying Around?? (Aug '08) Aug 13 Duque_dolores 56
News Depression still a top problem in high schools Aug 12 yogivini 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages