Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,153

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
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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196227 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
While there are those gays and lesbians who do not want to see same-sex marriage legalized, I'm certain that most of them believe that the gay and lesbian couples who DO want access to marriage SHOULD have the CHOICE available to enter into a marriage.
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

The point he has made, is that SSCs should have legal protections, but its not marriage. Civil Unions would work.
This issue is about a couple having the RIGHT to make a decision to marry based on their own personal beliefs and values.
It's always been about how we, as a society, define marriage. Even gay folks recognize the importance of maintaining marriage, legally, as a male female union, while granting SSCs legal protections.
Regarding what opponents of same-sex marriage "think", I have these sage words... Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one and most of them stink.
Even judges, who offer, or render opinions?

Since: May 09

Danielson, CT

#196228 Jun 15, 2013
So, does "marriage" basically mean when straight people are in rut then ?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196229 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie was USN, not USMC
That's right. I wanted to be a marine but I couldn't pass the physical. My head wouldn't fit in the jar!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196230 Jun 15, 2013
GreaterGreece wrote:
So, does "marriage" basically mean when straight people are in rut then ?
No.

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
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) 1 hr maryjaneprincton 19
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 5 hr William K 28
US stocks start lower Tue Anthony V 104
annoying helicopter flying near fremont st and ... (Sep '08) Dec 15 Zombie Corpse Rental 14
pune india Dec 13 sudhir1984 2
For Google's self-driving cars, learning to dea... Dec 12 Truth 6
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Dec 11 KROSE 375

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:33 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:33AM
Insider Buzz: Odds on Best Landing Spots for Jim Harbaugh
NBC Sports10:20 AM
Does Ray McDonald get cut if they are still in playoff hunt?
NBC Sports12:45 PM
McDonald case reconfirms NFL teams do whatever they want to do
Bleacher Report 1:04 PM
Michigan Fan Makes Jim Harbaugh Video Featuring Matthew McConaughey Voiceover
Bleacher Report 1:06 PM
Chargers vs. 49ers: Complete Week 16 Preview for San Francisco