Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201822 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

#196193 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>I see you got your stupid going today. Atheism is not a religion. Go back to brooooklim ya moron.
Your brand of fundie hateful atheism is a religion.

We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, you understand that you indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually.

You have indeed picked a side. You choose your religion based on what you believe is evidentiary to your presuppositions. Denying what you believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for you to swallow but you are only attempting to deceive yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196197 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>So you wish to over ride a law based on religion. Hummm nope idiot wont happen.
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects ofChristianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7
You're such a fundie, always with your religion schtick. As you often insist, religion is totally irrelevant to marriage. Try again.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. Tell me why you believe it doesn't. Hold the fundie atheism, your religion is irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196199 Jun 15, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many 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

#196201 Jun 15, 2013
I bet JazyBird58 changes sock puppets again soon. Wonder what dopey new name he'll come up with this time.

Old SniffsButt Billy calls him "Bird man" like he's cool or something. This stuff cracks me up.
LockUps

Monrovia, CA

#196202 Jun 15, 2013
I this the STUPID LOCKER?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196205 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me Frank why are you two faced? Why didn't you respond to this post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
Why should I?

But as long as it's question and answer time bird man, I answered yours now it's you turn to answer mine! Why didn't you finish high school at least? Do you have a sad story or was it just sloth?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196206 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
United States of America[edit]The United States was an association of former British Colonies which incorporated much of English law and culture in its Federal Constitution. Atheism in the USA is protected under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.[11][12]
Atheism is protected under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment
But it is not called a RELIGION.
Relax fruitloops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196207 Jun 15, 2013
LockUps wrote:
I this the STUPID LOCKER?
Zoro is dumbing it down more than usual.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196211 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects ofChristianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community
Jeez Jiz, cut and paste is bad enough but at least learn how to do it.

Boring stuff. Why did you post it? Will you ever stop with your religion schtick? Take it to the fundie threads.

Besides your religion, what other objections do you have to marriage equality?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196212 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>POUND SAND
YUK!YUK!YUK! You mad spicecake?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196216 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects ofChristianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community
Cool story Jiz. Post it a few more times maybe that will work. It's all you've got, go with it!

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage despite religion.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196217 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>"I disagree with you so rather than offer a well-reasoned response, I'll just try to insult you! That should do the trick!"
Frankie, you are utterly incapable of insulting me. Clearly you're inclined to make an attempt and, in the process, make yourself look foolish. By all means, continue with that strategy. Only your credibility will suffer for it.
Sure got you riled up good!

Why mad bro?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196218 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>"I disagree with you so rather than offer a well-reasoned response, I'll just try to insult you! That should do the trick!"
Frankie, you are utterly incapable of insulting me. Clearly you're inclined to make an attempt and, in the process, make yourself look foolish. By all means, continue with that strategy. Only your credibility will suffer for it.
I have repeatedly given you well reasoned responses. Even though your idiotic cut and paste posts hardly deserve them. You ignore them as if I didn't post them.

We'll try once again. What harm would a marriage of three women cause you?

Why do you believe polygamy doesn't deserve the same respect and consideration as SSM?

Hold the religion. It's irrelevant.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196220 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to cite a study or poll. I doubt you would find "many" who disagree. Particularly seeing as public support has been consistently increasing.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
<quoted text>
Of course it continues:
"Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.
"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.
"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.
"I'm not saying that people who want that shouldn't have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434
So, in reality, you have found one person with a potential objection to the wording, but not to equal protection of the law.
Do you read the articles that you post to the end, or even the middle for that matter?
Yes, actually I do. The sentiment expressed, and it is not an isolated viewpoint, is that SSCs should have legal protections, but marriage should remain a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196221 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, actually I do. The sentiment expressed, and it is not an isolated viewpoint, is that SSCs should have legal protections, but marriage should remain a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
The protections exist, legally they are called marriage, and if you think it is actually a good idea to let politicians to create new legislation that duplicates a set of legal protections that already exist, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

If your entire problem with this is one of terminology, it's time to grow up.
Fall

Monrovia, CA

#196222 Jun 15, 2013
Schools Out.! See ya in the fall.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196223 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The protections exist, legally they are called marriage, and if you think it is actually a good idea to let politicians to create new legislation that duplicates a set of legal protections that already exist, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Yes and legally, at least in 32 states, marriage is a legally recognized union of husband and wife. So if you those EXACT SAME protections, then marry, the EXACT SAME way.
If your entire problem with this is one of terminology, it's time to grow up.
It's not "terminology" but rather form and function. No matter which way you spin it, as same sex union, male or female, is not the same as an opposite sex union. Men and women are different. Biology 101. It's like calling a veggie patty a burger. "Gee Wilkerson, it has the texture like a hamburger, color, and even grill marks, let's call it a burger, that way the vegan activists won't be upset".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196224 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>POUND SAND
Frankie was USN, not USMC

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196225 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
do fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple husbands according to the dictates of their faith?
That would make them polyandrists. Do you know why most women wouldn't want multiple husbands? It can be summed up in one expression. "Oh my aching back". It might help if one husband was a chiropractor. Can u imagine the sports pay per view cable bill? The NFL package alone is a few hundred dollars.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196226 Jun 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't forget to mention the majority of lesbians who do not. Most folks don't really worry about what another couple wears (or doesn't) on their wedding day. Weddings are usually designed to suit the likes and dislikes of the couples involved.
C'mon Questy, even you can sense the underlying roles in the wedding dressed/ tuxedoed lesbian couple. "See we're just like a bride and groom getting married". Uhhhhh...huh.
Some women are more comfortable in "traditionally" female clothes. Some are more comfortable on more traditionally male clothes. Some could care less about the whole thing.
And this applies to ALL women, not just lesbians. If you disagree, you aren't living in a rural area. Most of the female farmers around here are, in dress, indistinguishable from their husbands.
Why the heck would a female farmer wear a wedding dress out in the fields?
And, yes, they should all be able to marry the single unrelated adult of their choice.
Choice is the key, isn't it?
In spouses and in clothes.
As long as that unrelated, first cousins included, adult of their choice is of the opposite sex. That way it's still marriage....you know a legally recognized union of husband and wife. Hmmmmm...wait you don't want the husband and wife part, but you like the outfits on wedding day.

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
comment (Jul '14) Tue life 16
oregon parting 1998 sig/series lincoln tc w s... Tue Firewater 23 1
News Off Deadline: Impending sea-level rise will aff... Jun 28 SpaceBlues 2
I am gonna tell her I wear lingerie. Jun 27 Anonymous 7
Does anyone know Jon Scottie Clarke......a prop... Jun 18 scottie clarke 1
News Talking with ... One of the nation's leading di... Jun 14 newsfail 2
It's a Justice County and don't you forget it. ... Jun 13 Gang Stalking 1
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages