Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 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.

Shaky Jake

La Puente, CA

#228362 Jan 24, 2014
Shaky Jakes back?

What an original concept?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228363 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does a law that defines marriage as "ONE man, ONE woman only" allow polygamy?
No. It doesn't. It's a simple concept really, it's good you asked for help though! Remember! There are no stupid posts. Only stupid posters like yourself.
Was polygamy allowed when that law went into effect? No, because it was already illegal. Prop 8 stopped gay couples from marrying. It changed nothing about polygamy. Polygamy was illegal BEFORE/AFTER Prop 8. And don't try that ridiculous "IF" there were no other laws excuse.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228364 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy allowed when that law went into effect? No, because it was already illegal. Prop 8 stopped gay couples from marrying. It changed nothing about polygamy. Polygamy was illegal BEFORE/AFTER Prop 8. And don't try that ridiculous "IF" there were no other laws excuse.
Miss Thing, a law that defines marriage as "ONE man and ONE woman ONLY" bans polygamy. How silly you get to argue otherwise!

The people who brought you prop 8 had polygamy in mind when they put the "ONE" in it.
How can you argue otherwise? Why do you argue otherwise? What a dope! You get so silly.
Shaky Jake

La Puente, CA

#228366 Jan 24, 2014
Shaky Jake where have you been?

#228364
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228367 Jan 24, 2014
Easy There Now wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop lying and stop stalking me you slimy cowardly bully ! If we met in person you'd be pissing your pants and whining like the liar that you are because you're a coward ! Still waiting for your proof liar but then we all know you for what you are,a consummate off topic liar who can't prove shyte mainly because you lie ! Still waiting big mouth,waiting for your proof ! Reported for stalking ! And stop lying about you being in combat you dishonor real vets liar ! The closest you came to combat was a whore house in Bangkok ! Now call your sponsor PDQ,you need to get back in alcohol treatment it didn't work the first time ! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Aw shuddup Bill you silly jackass! Get back to what you do best- rigging the judge-its! Good if you are gay, bad if you are straight. Except for your own posts which you rate good even though you are straight.~rolling eyes~

YUK!YUK!YUK!~Whoop!~Whoop! Ah good times! Old SniffButt Billy!$3 Bill! TOO FUNNY!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOL!!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228368 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy allowed when that law went into effect? No, because it was already illegal. Prop 8 stopped gay couples from marrying. It changed nothing about polygamy. Polygamy was illegal BEFORE/AFTER Prop 8. And don't try that ridiculous "IF" there were no other laws excuse.
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, is gaining a lot of mainstream attention and has edged onto the New York Times bestseller list. It explains, in breezy language and massive detail, the reason why humans the world over are failures at monogamy. It also examines the roots of human nature in other key regards.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#228369 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They're paranoid and close minded thinking polygamy is just a plot against SSM, they forget these are good people seeking marriage equality just like them.
Polygamy is marriage. It is not a plot against SSM, how self centered they are!
I do not see polygamy as a threat against gay marriage in anyway either. Maybe one of them will struggle with coming up with an answer?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#228370 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 was simple. It defined marriage as ONE man and ONE woman. Banning BOTH polygamy and SSM EQUALLY. What don't you understand about ONE man ONE woman banning polygamy? It's a simple concept really.
It sure seems simple enough. You make perfect sense. If only one man can marry one woman then one man can't marry two women and one man can't marry a man. Why would anyone use the judgeits against you like that? Would they judge you if you said today was January 24th?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#228371 Jan 24, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Did Prop 8 adress Polygamy specifically ?
You are making a distinction that does not exist.

Poof: Can I wear a red shirt?

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: No, I want to know if I can wear a red one.

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: Just tell me, can I wear Red?

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: Damn it, answer the question.

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: All I want to know is can I wear a red colored shirt, yes or not.

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: You could have answered yes or no.

ALAN: OK yes.

Poof: OK now, can I wear a blue colored shirt?

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: you just don't answer questions do you .Tell me is blue OK?

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

Poof: But I want to know if I can wear blue.

ALAN: You can wear any color you want.

etc.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#228372 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
YES. They had polygamy in mind when they defined marriage as ONE man, ONE woman. How can you say they didn't? They would have said "men and women" if they didn't have polygamy in mind.
Your argument that ONE man ONE woman has nothing to do with polygamy is absurd.
Absurd! Exactly. They specifically had polygamy in mind.

Here is some fear mongering from some Baptists:

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

"Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships," reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. "In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well."

Over the next three days, Baptist Press will preview some of the legal arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage ahead of Tuesday's and Wednesday's oral arguments. On those days the court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: California's Proposition 8 and a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in California, while the DOMA section in question defines marriage in federal law in the traditional sense. If both are overturned, then gay marriage likely would be legalized in all 50 states.

A friend-of-the-court brief signed by 18 state attorneys general also briefly warns about the potential legalization of polygamy if gay marriage is legalized. The brief -- which supports Prop 8 -- says the traditional definition of marriage is tied to the fact that only a man and woman can reproduce, thus continuing society's very existence. The state has an interest, the brief says, to see that children are raised, ideally, by the mother and father who beget them. A mother and father in each home is "optimal for children and society at large."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/if-ga... #
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228373 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure seems simple enough. You make perfect sense. If only one man can marry one woman then one man can't marry two women and one man can't marry a man. Why would anyone use the judgeits against you like that? Would they judge you if you said today was January 24th?
Nice weather we're having!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228374 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure seems simple enough. You make perfect sense. If only one man can marry one woman then one man can't marry two women and one man can't marry a man. Why would anyone use the judgeits against you like that? Would they judge you if you said today was January 24th?
Yes they will! Ah good times! I can say nice weather and they'll judge me badly. Too funny.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228375 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making a distinction that does not exist.
Poof: Can I wear a red shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: No, I want to know if I can wear a red one.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Just tell me, can I wear Red?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Damn it, answer the question.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: All I want to know is can I wear a red colored shirt, yes or not.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: You could have answered yes or no.
ALAN: OK yes.
Poof: OK now, can I wear a blue colored shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: you just don't answer questions do you .Tell me is blue OK?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: But I want to know if I can wear blue.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
etc.
Bravo. Beautiful!
Dee bowlers

La Puente, CA

#228376 Jan 24, 2014
A new load of bowlers gloves just arrived.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228377 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see polygamy as a threat against gay marriage in anyway either. Maybe one of them will struggle with coming up with an answer?
Sheeple is struggling with an answer over in another thread-

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
Zippys

La Puente, CA

#228378 Jan 24, 2014
Like the speed they arrive don't you?

#228377
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228379 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Miss Thing, a law that defines marriage as "ONE man and ONE woman ONLY" bans polygamy. How silly you get to argue otherwise!
The people who brought you prop 8 had polygamy in mind when they put the "ONE" in it.
How can you argue otherwise? Why do you argue otherwise? What a dope! You get so silly.
Miss Thing. You can't ban something that is already banned.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228380 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd! Exactly. They specifically had polygamy in mind.
Here is some fear mongering from some Baptists:
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
"Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships," reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. "In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well."
Over the next three days, Baptist Press will preview some of the legal arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage ahead of Tuesday's and Wednesday's oral arguments. On those days the court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: California's Proposition 8 and a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in California, while the DOMA section in question defines marriage in federal law in the traditional sense. If both are overturned, then gay marriage likely would be legalized in all 50 states.
A friend-of-the-court brief signed by 18 state attorneys general also briefly warns about the potential legalization of polygamy if gay marriage is legalized. The brief -- which supports Prop 8 -- says the traditional definition of marriage is tied to the fact that only a man and woman can reproduce, thus continuing society's very existence. The state has an interest, the brief says, to see that children are raised, ideally, by the mother and father who beget them. A mother and father in each home is "optimal for children and society at large."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/if-ga... #
If you believe ANYTHING the Baptists say, you have bigger problems to worry about. Polygamy was already banned BEFORE Prop 8.

Marriage is not required for continuing society's existence. Denying marriage to gay couples does NOTHING to enhance traditional marriage. The law served no purpose other than to discriminate against gay couples. That why they LOST in court.

"Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages," Not true. There are plenty of reasons for keeping polygamy illegal that have NOTHING to do with SSM.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228381 Jan 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making a distinction that does not exist.
Poof: Can I wear a red shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: No, I want to know if I can wear a red one.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Just tell me, can I wear Red?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: Damn it, answer the question.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: All I want to know is can I wear a red colored shirt, yes or not.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: You could have answered yes or no.
ALAN: OK yes.
Poof: OK now, can I wear a blue colored shirt?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: you just don't answer questions do you .Tell me is blue OK?
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
Poof: But I want to know if I can wear blue.
ALAN: You can wear any color you want.
etc.
Is that your long answer for "No?"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228382 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Miss Thing. You can't ban something that is already banned.
Sure you can. Prop 8 did.

Please be honest for once and answer my simple question. Did prop 8 allow polygamy? WE KNOW it was already against the law. Did prop 8 not say ONE man ONE woman only?

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
Close Moffett Field ! (Jun '06) Fri Hellary Clitass 103
News Weird noises are coming Apple complex (Feb '16) Fri Hellary Clitass 40
Lyft in Sunnyvale Fri Hellary Clitass 3
News VTA seems to think El Camino Real bus riders ar... (May '12) Fri Hellary Clitass 23
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Fri Hellary Clitass 106
News Facebook Revenue, Users Top Estimates as Mobile... Fri Hellary Clitass 3
Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14) Fri Hellary Clitass 105

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages