Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#198035 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013 /06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t 1
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
Frank take note, not one word about Polygamy, not one word.
LOL!!!!!

Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!!!! He loves his polygamy!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198037 Jun 26, 2013
Cooterbob wrote:
http://download.lardlad.com/so unds/season11/mansion15.mp3
frig my lifes!
She's a honey!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#198038 Jun 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, since homosexuality isn't a behavior at all, it would seem that this is just more of your made up bullshyt. There is nothing "clear" about bullshyt.
<quoted text>
And yet, after being asked repeatedly, you have yet to provide one scientific organization that is trying desperately to find this "purpose". Tell us KiMare, what scientific organizations are studying the purpose of homosexuality? And exactly how far along in their research are they? What precise part of this study is the point at which scientists are all stuck?
Specifics please to back up your statements.
Still waiting....
still waiting....
still waiting....
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! It's "clear" is it!!!!
<quoted text>
Show of hands please!!! Can all the gay folk in this forum let KiMare know if you would alter your sexual orientation if you could!!!! LOL!!!!!
KiMare, you are one of the stupidest bitches on Topix!!!!
<quoted text>
Says the old bitty who keeps talking about imaginary marriage constraints!!!
LOL!!!!!
Damn girl, you are some kinda f*cked up!!!!
The only gays on this thread that would choose to alter their orientation are the ones who are deeply closeted; the ones who are allegedly straight; the ones who are searching desperately for a cure.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198039 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Time to pull up stakes, take down the tent, put out the fire. Prop 8 is dead, and not one word about Polygamy from SCOTUS. But hey there are many other gay threads that you can haunt. Latter, Frank
Prop 8 prohibited polygamy too, hypocrite.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#198041 Jun 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the source of this completely irrelevant factoid!! I'm betting it was the 700 Club!!!!
KiMare, I'm pretty sure your husband watches more porn than anyone on the planet.
only 10 % of pakistan has internet... That guy is retarded but you probably already know that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198042 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>What is the topic of this thread?
Start a thread on Poly, go for it. As I have told you I don't care if you want 4 wives, it does not change my marriage at all. But the change must be made by the people who wish it. Th laws on polygamy have been around for a very long time. Prop 8 was written to abolish an existing right, same sex marriage.
Aw poor Jizzy, he's mad because prop 8 also prohibited polygamy. If you truly wanted marriage equality, why shouldn't it include poly? If it doesn't is that really equality Jizzy? Think hard, ask for help.

Stop whining! It's a day to celebrate equality!
Anonymous

Saint Paul, MN

#198043 Jun 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
A victory for marriage equality is a victory for polygamy too! WOO~HOOO! Ah good times!
You're right, brother. I think folks with a polyamorous orientation should be granted the same legal right to marry as hetro/homosexuals. Thinking otherwise is just plain bigotry! Here’s why:

1. Polyamorous Orientation: According to the theory of Genetic Imperative, many men are biologically hardwired or oriented to feel attraction toward multiple women, yet social values and socialization pressures require men to repress expression of these innate impulses (this is true across all socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups). Since a predominant number of men have inborn sexual tendencies that are incompatible with a monogamous lifestyle, by no fault of their own, marriage ought to be progressively redefined as a socially approved relationship between an undefined number of consenting spouses.

2. Separation of Church and State: Many state marriage laws codify and uphold religious principles that unjustly and unconstitutionally force polysexuals to conform to non-secular tradition.

3. Consequential Neutrality: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists’ right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.

4. Consequentialism: Studies have shown that parental household income and parental involvement correlates positively with many lifelong success indicators. Since multiple-parent households have greater income potential and more parental time than monogamist parents, children raised by stable polygamist parents stand to be more educated, healthy, well-adjusted and productive as adults than their monogamist-raised counterparts. Considering the significant long-term social benefits of polygamous relationships, governments should not discriminatorily deny their citizens’ right to this equally valid lifestyle.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198044 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013 /06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t 1
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
Frank take note, not one word about Polygamy, not one word.
Aw, Jizzy is mad because "marriage is a man and a woman" is struck down and that means one less law against poly. Poor poor Jizzy.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#198046 Jun 26, 2013
To all of you still against same-sex marriage:

YOU DON'T MATTER!! LOL!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198047 Jun 26, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again showing your total lack of reading comprehension skills.... Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Did you see the big pro=polygamy crowds in front of SCOTUS? No, me neither. Did you hear all the reports about a victory for polygamy? No, me neither. Get a grip, loser.
Aw, poor X-box. She's mad because there is one less law against polygamy. Poor, poor hypocrite.

Don't worry, there's still that pesky federal discriminatory law against it. Cheer up! You can still send people to prison for marrying the people they love! That should make you happy. Polygamy is one step closer to being legal. Get a grip, loser.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198048 Jun 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Hi, my name is KiMare. I got no real argument about gays being married so I love to make up shyt about imaginary constraints and research. I love procreation and I so wish it were a valid argument. I love talking about nothing more than procreation and how gays can't mutually procreate as a couple. I honestly think they are unaware of this fact and that by repeating it over and over I am somehow hurting them!!!!! I'm an idiot fundie.
Hi, my name is Rizzo. I love polygamy. I think that if I continually pretend that polygamy has something to do with gays being married, I can come out of this forum a winner!!! Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!!!! I love polygamy!!!! I want more than one pussy to pound. I really hope the gays open that up for me!! I love polygamy!!!!
Hi, my name is Bruno. I'm very sure that penguins can fly.
Hi! My name is Jonah1! I am a hypocrite. I don't support marriage equality for people I hate.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198049 Jun 26, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? How does one 'feel' diversity.... or is that unique to stupid people like you?
You know how you get all hot and sweaty and feel hate when someone mentions polygamy? It feels like that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198050 Jun 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!!!
Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!!!! He loves his polygamy!!!!
LOL!!!!!
SSM, SSM, SSM!!!! He loves his SSM!!!!
Leadership

Monrovia, CA

#198051 Jun 26, 2013
Ah, stick a fork in it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198052 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Incorrect, in your state, there is but one. Have keep deflecting. Say did you read the SCOTUS ruling? Funny, not one word about polygamy or incest. Dang I guess you where just wrong again.
So polygamists can now marry more than one person Jizzy?

Your anger at the mere mention of polygamy speaks for itself. Why are you a hypocrite?

“what are you talking about you”

Since: Mar 11

schlappington, by god

#198053 Jun 26, 2013
voet fore chaz four cheef justus of the suepreem cort!!
&li st=PL4AE0C04E00215A84
frig my lifes!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198054 Jun 26, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Hey dippy I was sticking up for the Catholic Church against a well known Fundie.
Say Frank did you read the ruling from SCOTUS?
Way to stick up for it Jizzy!

Here's how you stuck up for it: "the great w_hore church, The RCC. Later church boi."

Please don't ever stick up for me.
Orville

Monrovia, CA

#198056 Jun 26, 2013
Once again the entire Glendora city council, Judy Nelson, Gene Murabito, Joseph Santoro, Karen Davis and Douglas Tessitor are complete idiots.

Tuesday June 25, 2013 city council meeting was the last straw in their insanity act they put on for the public at large who can stomach watching them act stupid all night long.

The act includes double talk, stupid talk, ignorant talk and just plain crazy talk form each of the Glendora, California city council member's.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198057 Jun 26, 2013
Tony C wrote:
To all of you still against same-sex marriage:
YOU DON'T MATTER!! LOL!!!
Sounds like the same people that voted in the great obama telling the rest of us that we don't matter. Heard it before. Now I don't hear those Obama fans so much while he's spending another 100 million to vacation in Africa again. I hope his Mother in law and niece enjoy it too, I'm sure the rest of us need to cut back and stop wasting fuel.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198058 Jun 26, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, brother. I think folks with a polyamorous orientation should be granted the same legal right to marry as hetro/homosexuals. Thinking otherwise is just plain bigotry! Here’s why:
1. Polyamorous Orientation: According to the theory of Genetic Imperative, many men are biologically hardwired or oriented to feel attraction toward multiple women, yet social values and socialization pressures require men to repress expression of these innate impulses (this is true across all socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups). Since a predominant number of men have inborn sexual tendencies that are incompatible with a monogamous lifestyle, by no fault of their own, marriage ought to be progressively redefined as a socially approved relationship between an undefined number of consenting spouses.
2. Separation of Church and State: Many state marriage laws codify and uphold religious principles that unjustly and unconstitutionally force polysexuals to conform to non-secular tradition.
3. Consequential Neutrality: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists’ right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.
4. Consequentialism: Studies have shown that parental household income and parental involvement correlates positively with many lifelong success indicators. Since multiple-parent households have greater income potential and more parental time than monogamist parents, children raised by stable polygamist parents stand to be more educated, healthy, well-adjusted and productive as adults than their monogamist-raised counterparts. Considering the significant long-term social benefits of polygamous relationships, governments should not discriminatorily deny their citizens’ right to this equally valid lifestyle.
Bravo!

There's also a substantial First Amendment claim for religious polygamists to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith. That is the one that bothers many people of tolerance and diversity.

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
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 6 hr hsktommox 37
Soon everyone will be an electric company 13 hr Mike Honka 4
'Hybrid' store displays new plans (Jun '07) 15 hr Mike Honka 5
annoying helicopter flying near fremont st and ... (Sep '08) 16 hr Mike Honka 15
Highly curious about being a sub/slave to a mis... 16 hr Mike Honka 2
Which cheap and legit site to buy fifa 15 coins? Dec 26 alex 3
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Dec 24 yes call me 09864... 376

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 7:32 pm PST

Bleacher Report 7:32PM
49ers End Season on High Note
Bleacher Report 7:56 PM
Full Game Grades for Broncos vs. Raiders
Bleacher Report 9:32 PM
San Francisco 49ers: Jim Harbaugh Leaves with a Win, but the Future Is Uncertain
Bleacher Report11:36 PM
Broncos Defense Shines in Week 17 Win over Raiders
Bleacher Report12:51 AM
Broncos Hitting Stride on Both Sides of the Ball Entering Playoffs