Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,979

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
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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196232 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And the beer and pizza! Marone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196233 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
.....it's time to grow up.
Indeed.
laughing man

UK

#196234 Jun 15, 2013
Oh, this is simply horrible. More posts have been obliterated by a "moderator" who only yesterday picked hairs off urinal cakes at Carls Jr.

What kind of a loser is a moderator at such a lowbrow site?

I'm laughing at you, loser.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196235 Jun 15, 2013
Anyone else ever notice that Big D only posts M-F 7AM-3PM? In other words on the boss's computer and on the boss's time. Fun way to while away the day, must be a government employee. So it's on us! Nice touch.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196236 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
Oh, this is simply horrible. More posts have been obliterated by a "moderator" who only yesterday picked hairs off urinal cakes at Carls Jr.
What kind of a loser is a moderator at such a lowbrow site?
I'm laughing at you, loser.
Jizzy (Zoro). That's the only way he can win an argument.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196238 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Is there a compelling state interest served by confining the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman? If not, we simply have 32 states with unconstitutional laws, which will eventually be overturned.
You are good at pointing towards the existing laws, but you are lousy in defending them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
No two marriages are the same, pointing out that there are differences is a far cry from making a valid case against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Men and women are different.
Did you figure that one out all on your own?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Biology 101.

Biology will also show you that some of the population is homosexual. The constitution will show you that all people are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

At the end of the day, all of your arguments of normalcy, opposite sex couples being different, etc are all irrelevant. None offers a valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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".
Do you think that this was relevant, or did you have a TIA?

If you are trying to compare veggie burgers, hamburgers, and marriage, perhaps you need professional help? Ironically veggie burgers ARE still called burgers, as are turkey burgers, buffalo burgers, and even tofu burgers, so even your hypothetical example doesn't really pan out the way you had wanted.

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
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 1 hr surfboards 7,957
US stocks start lower 2 hr Go Blue Forever 48
Complaints Against Google+ 6 hr Heres Johnny 90
Topix is Against the First Amendment 6 hr Heres Johnny 11
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 17 hr theos 2,276
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Sun abusedmom 108
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sat free for all 5,081
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••