Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
117,261 - 117,280 of 200,586 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#130597 Feb 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't very bright, are you? Equal protection is promised to everyone by our Constitution. Polygamy had its day in Court and why did the Court deny their claim???????? Hmmm???
Because Mona Lott hates polygamists? YUK!YUK!YUK!

Yeah yeah, SCOTUS Schmotus! I'm not asking you "Why isn't polygamy legal or should it be?". Get that? That's NOT my question. Let in sink in so you don't give me the same old reply, dipshit.

My question is why do YOU support same sex marriage and why don't YOU support polygamy.

Does me asking that question make you angry?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#130598 Feb 28, 2012
JohnInCA wrote:
California voters voted for segregation by referendum too. Should that have been kept around because it was the "will of the people" as well?
No! The Founders and Framers never intended for the majority to vote minority rights out of existence. They wrote into the Constitution protections for minority populations.

In the State of California, the State Constitution allows for only a 50%+ 1 vote to strip rights away, in violation against the Federal Constitution. It's that flaw in the State Constitution that allowed Prop 8 and in the past, the removal of rights against Chinese, Japanese, Asians in general, Blacks and Native Americans. It has been lamented, but never fixed.

Invariably, it is the Courts that always fix the error.

Eric
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130599 Feb 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you check with SCOTUS, dumbass? You know they have already ruled on polygamy. Why are you still whining about it? Or do you still think another court can overrule SCOTUS?
Do you mean the same SCOTUS that has already said no federal right to gay marriage?

"Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,[2] though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate.[3]"

just saying, at least be consistent.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130600 Feb 28, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If she'd have been sharing it with me I'd have been concerned enough to have taken care of birth control so we'd not be having this discussion.
If the two of us have been irresponsible she still is the one out of the two of us that is going to bear all the burden of the pregnancy. That, IMHO, ought to have a great deal of weight in the matter.
Depending upon what source you believe the human body is made up of 10 to 100 trillion cells. So sperm boy has 1 cell out of her 10 trillion that are going to be busy nurturing his haploid contribution. So I'll grant him an equal fraction of control.
how financially responsible are they either way?
EQUALLY?
All I am saying is that if its her choice alone, it should be her consequences alone. You cant give her the choice and him the bill. That's all i am saying.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130601 Feb 28, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
No! The Founders and Framers never intended for the majority to vote minority rights out of existence. They wrote into the Constitution protections for minority populations.
you are confusing legislation with a constitutional amendment which by definition cannot conflict with the constitution.

You also misinterpret the way authority passes from the state to the federal govt, and not the other way around. The entire US constitution does not apply to the states. Even the whole bill of rights does not.

As you say, CA has its own folly here, but that does not make what you said an accurate statement of the law.

Like science, with the law, words have precise meanings which you seem to bowl over.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130602 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the same SCOTUS that has already said no federal right to gay marriage?
"Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,[2] though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate.[3]"
just saying, at least be consistent.
Um...40 years ago... Just saying.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130603 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the old saying, "Don't be a silly put a rubber on your willy"? Men have a choice they just meed to make it BEFORE they deposit the baby batter.
so the man has a choice to avoid the pregnancy (as if she doesn't have that SAME choice), but once it occurs he out of luck and she calls the shots? just start paying without any say? This is FAIR to you?

Can't you see that her SAME choice to avoid the pregnancy is what entitles him to a say over the baby even though its in her body?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130604 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Men who wish to avoid fatherhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off.
"WOMEN who wish to avoid MOTHERhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off."

See what I mean?
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130605 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
how financially responsible are they either way?
EQUALLY?
All I am saying is that if its her choice alone, it should be her consequences alone. You cant give her the choice and him the bill. That's all i am saying.
Men have CHOICES too. Don't want to be a daddy? Use a CONDOM. All I am saying is the SOLUTION is THAT simple.

The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130606 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"WOMEN who wish to avoid MOTHERhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off."
See what I mean?
No, not really. Your argument was that the women have all the control. All I did was point out that MEN have OPTIONS too. And if they do not want to be fathers they need to take measures to make sure it doesn't happen.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130607 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so the man has a choice to avoid the pregnancy (as if she doesn't have that SAME choice), but once it occurs he out of luck and she calls the shots? just start paying without any say? This is FAIR to you?
Can't you see that her SAME choice to avoid the pregnancy is what entitles him to a say over the baby even though its in her body?
I did not say anything about the woman's choice. And this might be a huge shock to you but women can and do get pregnant to trap men. Yes it's mess up and wrong but it's also amazing to me that men have not wised up.

As for those women that get pregnant because they are too irresponsible to use birth control and then decide to have an abortion. Are these women fit to PARENT? Should they be forced to have children as PUNISHMENT? I don't think so.

And don't even get me started on the ones who need DNA testing to figure out who the baby daddy is!

As for men payong for the "choice" a woman makes being fair... What can I say? Life isn't always fair but kids always have to be feed and clothed.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#130608 Feb 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't very bright, are you? Equal protection is promised to everyone by our Constitution. Polygamy had its day in Court and why did the Court deny their claim???????? Hmmm???
I know you love it that polygamy is illegal, the same as some people love it that same sex couples cannot marry in some places. And that it will be hard to change this but read the wisdom of one of your heroes:

"We Americans write our own history. And the chapters of which we're proudest are the ones where we had the courage to change." -Al Gore.

Al Gore is a great man right Sue?...right..? YUK!YUK!YUK!
SpamOlater

Covina, CA

#130609 Feb 28, 2012
More than once a crank-pot has 'linked' a so called topic to another cities topix-board, this in it's self is just bill-boarding or spaming.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#130610 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you believe about it? You are an attorney. I am just a "dumbass" on food stamps (according to some of your many desperate ad hominem insults). So bear with me here. Is it your case that since I use "YUK!" in a manner that irritates you ;) you are not a hypocrite to support same sex marriage but not polygamy?
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Desperate ad hominem insults? ROFLMAO!!

See, now that's desperate. And, on an annonymous internet forum.

Hey, you opened the door with your statement about supporting two ex-wives and 3 bartenders. When compared to me, you're the desperate one.

You irritate me? I'd have to allow you to irritate me and that's simply not going to happen.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130611 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not really. Your argument was that the women have all the control. All I did was point out that MEN have OPTIONS too. And if they do not want to be fathers they need to take measures to make sure it doesn't happen.
Yes, and my response is a woman's right to choose could also be said to have occurred BEFORE the pregnancy. In other words, I am just applying your logic EVENLY and without chauvinism.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130612 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>

As for men payong for the "choice" a woman makes being fair... What can I say? Life isn't always fair but kids always have to be feed and clothed.
As for a woman's choice, I just have to say that "Life isn't always fair but kids always have to be feed and clothed." so a dad should have say in termination of the child, no?

It would be fair to the woman since its her body, BUT, we have kids to clothe and feed so if daddy don't want a baby she should HAVE TO abort by your logic (again applied evenly and without chauvinism).
So again, what all this about it being solely a woman's right to choose?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#130613 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I have ever read a post OPPOSING polygamy here, but FACTS are not going to stop Frank from continuing to "demanding" an answer.
I don't think I have ever read a post SUPPORTING polygamy here. But facts are not going to stop you from being contrary because you suspect my motives.

Anyway, how do they feel about polygamy there where you live in Crazyville?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#130614 Feb 28, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so tired of hearing this- "9 month burden"- thing. If you aren't ready to accept the possible outcomes from your "roll in the hay" than perhaps you shouldn't be partaking in said activities.
An what of the 18 year "burden" the man must endure should she choose to have the child?
And seriously, statements like these- the guy just offers up the load- is part of the reason "guys" don't take responsibility. Why should they? They are just a sperm donor.
As humans, we tend to rise to the level of responsibility which is expected of us. Placing such low expectations on the male for so many years has, if nothing else, indirectly resulted in what we see in society today. An entire entertainment industry built on men who don't support their children, and women who have no idea who the father is.
We need to put responsibility back into our society.
AKP, are you a dad? Do you pay child support? Do you think that the 18 year burden of paying child support compares to the 9 month burden of carrying a child, or do you really believe a man's responsibility for raising a child is limited to paying child support?

You're an idiot.

I paid child support for 4 years. I paid more in child support than many men make in a month, and now, I am the custodial parent. I don't need child support. I make a decent enough living to have already paid for my daughter's college education, and she's only 8. I would like to have my ex-wife's support in educating my daugther, but that's as far from reality as Frank's plea for equality for polygamists.

Be that as it may, my wife is more of a mother to my daughter than her own mother is, hence the reason my daughter refers to my wife as "mom."

Carrying the child is a burden; paying child support is also a burden. But, neither compare with the burden of raising a child and that's a burden not many men, and certainly not certain women, are cut out to carry. So, until men can gestate, a condition precedent to the burden of raising a child will always be the burden of carrying the child during pregnancy. And that will always be the woman's choice.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#130615 Feb 28, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to the Constitution there is only one side of the coin. It is lawyers, judges, politicians, and activists who wish to train everyone to think it has various interpretations
The world evolves and society evolves with it AKP. If it didn't, we'd still have full service gas stations, 10 oz glass bottles of coke that cost only 25 cents and so on.

The constitution does have one side; the side of the people and the rights it recognize, apply EQUALLY to all citizens. So, it's not Judges, politicians and lawyers who train anyone to think it has various interpretations; is that people do not accept that it does. If people did, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the basis for the SSM argument, would not instill such debate as it does.

So, unless you can recall the precise moment in time when you were conceived, you need to shut up about a woman's right to an abortion. Unless you can recall the precise moment in time when you CHOSE to be a heterosexual, you need to shut up about gays' rights to marry. And uless you can cite the constitutional amendment, case law, or Federal Statute that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, you need to shut up about what lawyers, judges and politicians are trying to train people to think. That's what certain religious cults are doing.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#130618 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Mona Lott hates polygamists? YUK!YUK!YUK!
Yeah yeah, SCOTUS Schmotus! I'm not asking you "Why isn't polygamy legal or should it be?". Get that? That's NOT my question. Let in sink in so you don't give me the same old reply, dipshit.
My question is why do YOU support same sex marriage and why don't YOU support polygamy.
Does me asking that question make you angry?
YUK!YUK!YUK!
No, it doesn't make me angry. It makes you sound like a little kid who's only response is "why Mommy? Why can't I have as many wives as I want?" Why?

Regardless of whether polyamorous relationships are appropriate or if it's appropriate for people to have polygamous marriage ceremonies in religious institutions the benefits provided by legally recognized marriage pose serious problems. A group of people, such as a street gang, corrupt public officials, corrupt businessmen, or even a terrorist cell could get legally married to avoid testifying against each other in court. Divorce proceedings would be complicated. Even if just one spouse was getting a divorce since marriage involves sharing property so the court would have to figure out who brought what into the marriage to protect the property of the spouses not getting divorced. Determining child custody would also be difficult. Which spouses are eligible for custody rights? All of them? Just the two that had the child? Any spouse that was in the marriage at the time the child came into their custody? Determining how to divide inheritance would also be complicated. Furthermore it has a greater abuse potential in immigration law than monogamy. A person could bring in thousands of people just by marrying them. This could pose a grave threat to national security, since a terrorist or spy could use this to get his associates into the country easier, and combined with spousal immunity obtaining evidence in order to stop them could prove difficult.

Polygamy harms society.
1. Polygamy harms women.
a. Polygamy causes jealousy and competition between wives.
b. Polygamy sacrifices love between mates to other considerations.
c. Compound Polygamous women are being brain-washed and don't have a choice.
d. Polygamous marriages are typically hierarchical and undemocratic.
e. Polygamy will always be sexist with patriarchal polygyny predominating.
e. Polygamy ordains men to dominate and abuse wives. g7. Polygamy wrongly promotes patriarchal principles in society.

2. Polygamy harms children. Polygamous fathers can't give their children adequate attention.

3. Polygamy harms families. Polygamous family dynamics are complicated and unstable.

4. Polygamy harms men.
a. Polygamy leaves some men with no women to marry. Governments should avoid actions that increase the amount of people who cannot get married.
b. Polygamous men are strained in managing household complexities.


5. Legally recognizing polygamy would result in a lot of legal problems. Polygamous divorce is a legal nightmare in dividing children and property

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Beam me up Scottie 3 hr guest 123
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr Macko mono 5,000
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 19 hr Lightning Linda 3
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 20 hr Tank ever 7,926
Trouble sleeping: a warning sign of suicide in ... Aug 27 Pharma Maims Kills 8
Tongan shot in US, grateful to Chinese Navy sur... Aug 27 Zorri 12
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
Redwood City Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••