Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156222 Aug 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Dingleberry wants us to believe the homosexual sex practices found in The Little Black Book are not exclively homosexual because "Straight do them too."
LOL! Gary wants us to believe that there are sex practices that have a sexual orientation! What a dolt!
Prof Marvel wrote:
I know I don't.
But you do, by your admission, get head from drag queens. Does that mean getting heads from drag queesn is a heteroseuxal sex practice Gary? Based on the way you establish "logic" it would be! Must suck to be so ignorant Gary!

Quite frankly, given your ugly mug, your Housewives of Atlanta dye job, and your stupidity, most would question whether you've had any type of sex whatsoever. But I'm sure you've been able to use the $28 a year you get from your book sales to at least get a little happy ending from at least one skank that has hands small enough to work with your little member.

Most of us laugh Gary, that you think that only the sex you have is what most others are having!!! Hate to break it to you bub, but the majority of citizens on this planet aren't into settling for the occasional frottage on the subway that you are resigned to accepting as satisfying sex.
Prof Marvel wrote:
How about you other straights out there?
Your obsession with other people's sex is sick Gary. If you are so interested in other people's sex, why don't you ask your pastor what type of sex he has? Why do you need people on the internet to tell you? Oh, that's right, because they can't see what you need the information for. Your need to use Topix as a masturbatory tool is creepy.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Below I've listed some of the despicable practices listed in the booklet.:
1. Pee Play
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
Prof Marvel wrote:
2. Fisting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting
Prof Marvel wrote:
3. Rimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus
Prof Marvel wrote:
4. Cocksucking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallatio
Prof Marvel wrote:
5. Walk down the street half-nude being led by your "top" on a dog leash.
Where was this "listed in the booklet" Gary? Was it anywhere near where the GLSEN is credited?!!!! LOL!!! What a pitiful liar you are Gary!!

Oh, and since I don't know the clinical term for the practice, I can't provide a link without breaking the terms of Topix since entering "women submissive leash" only brings up porn demonstrating the many straight people that engage in this activity.

Based on the links provided, you've just been proven yet again Gary, to being a pathetic liar. Not one of these acts that you personally find "despicable" is "homosexual". Not one.

Hey Gary, did you know that people that find certain behaviors "despicalbe" yet talk and obsess about them constently, are really people who want to engage in them but are too chicken shit to do so??!! LOL!!! Seems you're not just a chicken shit liar, but your a chicken shit in general!
Prof Marvel wrote:
Please tell us if you do these things
So gross. Begging other people to tell you what they do sexually. You really need some help fella.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

#156223 Aug 24, 2012
Hey Rittardo wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea how you just confirmed my statement....HY-larious!
Good lord! You make Bruno look like a Rhodes Scholar!
Carry on, Rittardo....keep digging your hole....
Sounds like you think you piss farther. Grow up, like I said, you add nothing, your job here is to mock and insult, try to get a good laugh...it adds nothing.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156224 Aug 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I forget to put quotes on that?
I'm so sorry! It was written by a Stanford evolution scientist.
smirk.
Really? Seems odd given that placing any of your text into google only brings up your profile and Topix.

Please do share with us the name of this Stanford evolution scientist. And for that matter, the peer reviewed publications of his work! Based on the portions you presented, your Stanford evoltuion scientist sounds like an idiot. I bet he studied under Paul Cameron!!

Hurry back with your respone KiMare! Can't wait. I want to find out which Stanford evolution scientist stated that "animals are permeated with thoughts of heterosexuality" and that "men will generally be disgusted by facial hair on a woman because of evolution"!!!! LOL!!!

Tell me, is the source of your gobbledy gook credited as a Stanford Evolutionary Scientist in Gary Lloyd's beloved Little Black Book? Maybe Gary could provide the page number!! I'm sure it's listed right along side of where the GSLEN is credited and where walking your bottom on a leash is mentioned!!!!!

Hurry back now! smirk.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#156225 Aug 24, 2012
As regular readers of this thread know, I love my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and yes, even the "Blacks". Even so, I do not approve of actors in pornographic films altering their syphilis-positive test results so they can continue performing in adult films.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/dyzjeau

Ronald
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#156226 Aug 24, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying that what ever 2 consenting adults choose to do is NO ONE'S business but theirs!!!
You might call those fetishes evil, and my recommendation to you is to not participate in such activities......but not EVERYONE believes as you do.......and therefore it's not your place to tell others what to do or how to believe!!!
By the way.......Gays and Lesbians for the most part are NOT depraved individuals!!!
Then how is it your place to tell others to believe that Gays and Lesbians for the most part are not depraved?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156227 Aug 24, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Gary wants us to believe that there are sex practices that have a sexual orientation! What a dolt!
<quoted text>
But you do, by your admission, get head from drag queens. Does that mean getting heads from drag queesn is a heteroseuxal sex practice Gary? Based on the way you establish "logic" it would be! Must suck to be so ignorant Gary!
Quite frankly, given your ugly mug, your Housewives of Atlanta dye job, and your stupidity, most would question whether you've had any type of sex whatsoever. But I'm sure you've been able to use the $28 a year you get from your book sales to at least get a little happy ending from at least one skank that has hands small enough to work with your little member.
Most of us laugh Gary, that you think that only the sex you have is what most others are having!!! Hate to break it to you bub, but the majority of citizens on this planet aren't into settling for the occasional frottage on the subway that you are resigned to accepting as satisfying sex.
<quoted text>
Your obsession with other people's sex is sick Gary. If you are so interested in other people's sex, why don't you ask your pastor what type of sex he has? Why do you need people on the internet to tell you? Oh, that's right, because they can't see what you need the information for. Your need to use Topix as a masturbatory tool is creepy.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallatio
<quoted text>
Where was this "listed in the booklet" Gary? Was it anywhere near where the GLSEN is credited?!!!! LOL!!! What a pitiful liar you are Gary!!
Oh, and since I don't know the clinical term for the practice, I can't provide a link without breaking the terms of Topix since entering "women submissive leash" only brings up porn demonstrating the many straight people that engage in this activity.
Based on the links provided, you've just been proven yet again Gary, to being a pathetic liar. Not one of these acts that you personally find "despicable" is "homosexual". Not one.
Hey Gary, did you know that people that find certain behaviors "despicalbe" yet talk and obsess about them constently, are really people who want to engage in them but are too chicken shit to do so??!! LOL!!! Seems you're not just a chicken shit liar, but your a chicken shit in general!
<quoted text>
So gross. Begging other people to tell you what they do sexually. You really need some help fella.
Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.

Once again, thanks.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156228 Aug 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
96% of marriages procreate children in the world.
LOL!!! Did your Stanford Evolution scientist provide you with this stat?!!!! LOL!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay unions procreate 0%.
Are they required to? LOL!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of makes someone saying children don't factor into marriage look pretty stupid.
Who said children don't factor into marriage?!! No one I know. What was said was that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage.
Children does not equal procreation.
Factor does not equal requirement.
Your deceitfulness is hilarious KiMare!! I bet you think you are really smart!! I bet you brag to all the other fundies at your church socials about how smart you are by presenting the stupidity you launch on these Topix boards and they all congradulate you!!! Stupid fundies!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course reproduction in not 'required' for marriage. It is not 'required' that you be in a wheelchair either to qualify for handicap rights.
I see. People can obtain handicap rights for many reasons, not just being in a wheelchair. Got it. So its just like how people can obtain marriage rights for many reasons, not just because they are going to procreate.

(Um, do you see what an idiot you are?!!! Everyone else does!!!)
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential.
I love it when you delve into flowery speak! It's like your fingers are just a going and you think you have this incredible "point" to validate yourself and all you are doing is just typing nonsense!!

Let me rephrase what you just said. Being in a wheelchair can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential. That's exactly the same as saying, "procreating can be one factor that identifes many as married, and many of marriage rights and privileges address that single potential."

But, as YOUR words indicate, being in a wheelchair "CAN" be one factor. Just as procreating "CAN" be one factor. Neither are the sole and only factor.

But please, let's continue disecting your nonsense! Carry on!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The same is true for children in marriage. The potential in marriage is so overwhelming, that it is assumed children will be a factor, even though a small portion will not or cannot exercise that potential.
Children in marriage is not the same thing as procreating fool. Please decide what it is that you are talking about and stick with one thing.

Oh, and by the way, the potential that marriages produce children is NOT "overwhelming". Do you have any idea how many people marry AFTER the age of potential childbearing?!! LOL!! Damn you are stupid!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is solely why first cousins are not allowed to marry, and blood tests are a part of marriage licenses many times.
OMG!!! What a dolt! Did you think that adding "solely" would make you seem smart?!! Um, first off, first cousins can, and do marry, so claiming that they are not allowed to because they can potentially procreate makes you an outright liar and idiot. 25 states allow first cousins to marry you moron!!

And only 8 states still require a blood test. And blood tests were and are solely about potential disease. Period. They have nothing to do with the bullshit you are trying to peddle.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#156229 Aug 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.
Once again, thanks.
YOU have no point and all you have been told is basic truth and facts........now, if it is perverted in your opinion because Gays do it.....then you must agree that it is perverted if straights do it, right?

And as usual you totally ignore the sites that give teenagers information about sex that involves straight teens, but make a huge issue out of a book supposedly handed out to gay youths.......what a hypocrite you are!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#156230 Aug 24, 2012
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how is it your place to tell others to believe that Gays and Lesbians for the most part are not depraved?
Did you not read my response to you? You are entitled to your opinion.....but that doesn't make it truth or fact and if what you consider is depraved.....do you not consider straights who do the same thing....depraved?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#156231 Aug 24, 2012
LLE wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is not a choice. Polygamists, brothers and sisters, cousins: those are choices.
Now that's rich..

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#156232 Aug 24, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Equally with HETEROSEXUAL married couples, silly one.
And right now heterosexuals aren't clamoring to marry relatives. Only the anti-gay bigot crowd is touting incest.
You know, people like you.
Does it matter? If just one person is denied their right to marry someone of their choice, isn't that a violation of the 14th Amendment under your interpretation? I didn't know you needed to form a majority to gain a "right".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#156233 Aug 24, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can keep saying it, but it's simply not true.
You can keep denying it, but it still is.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Were they really equal under the law? Why did the court rule that they were not?
One court. Not THE court. Next question.

Check out Hernandez v Robels. Stop acting like every court agrees with you because he 9th Circuit does.
Hey Rittardo

Downey, CA

#156234 Aug 24, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like you think you piss farther. Grow up, like I said, you add nothing, your job here is to mock and insult, try to get a good laugh...it adds nothing.
My "job" here?!

I didn't know I had a "job" here....but if I did, I suppose it would be to point out fools when fools appear.

BTW, your Eminence, you have no clothes.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156235 Aug 24, 2012
The continued dissection of KiMare's stupidity continues!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is why the attempt to separate this identity in marriage is so offensive and ridiculous.
Um, your supposed "identity" in marriage is totally made up. Marriage does not, and never will have a "procreation" identity.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially when voiced by another relationship that has zero potential to co-procreate any children.
Wow, that's a load of horseshit. So, according to you, any couple that has zero potential to procreate also have no voice in what constitutes a marriage! Way to go KiMare! You've just insulted all infertile people, all women that have had hysterectomies, and all straight people past the age of child bearing!! Must be nice to insult so many people in one full swoop and still call yourself a "messenger of god"!!!

And let's not even mention that gays can and do procreate, thus their "voice" is EQUAL to yours and the other bigots you represent!!! Damn, you are such a complete moronic tool!!!! Sadly, I bet you still think you've presented an "intelligent" argument!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there people not in wheelchairs who are given handicapped status? Answer; Yes.
Woo hoo!!! The idiot finally said something that was accurate!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
By your rationalization,
By your own diatribe, you have proven that you aren't intellectually capable of comprehending my rationalizations. But please, don't let that stop you from pretending otherwise!!!

Carry on....
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
then any person not in a wheel chair should have handicapped status.
Huh? What?? LOL!!!! OK, I'm going to try my damnest to keep within the confines of the two multi-conflictual metaphors that you are trying so desperately to use!!!

Um, no KiMare. Nowhere did I state that every person should have a married status, whether or not they are going to, are capable of, or want to have children.

"By [my] own rationalization"!!!!! You stupid fucktard!! My rationalization doesn't require imaginary wheelchairs and handicapped statuses!! My rationalization requires only one statement. And it is this: "Procreation is not now, nor has it ever been, a requirement of marriage. That is a FACTUAL statement. It is not, nor will it ever be, altered in any remote way by the fact that many (and certainly not 96%) married couples do have children. Nor will that FACT ever be altered by who qualifies for handicapped status.

Do you need me to draw you picture with crayons?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are their people without black skin given minority rights?
Yawn. Why yes KiMare, there are. Women would be one. What's your point?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by your rationalization,
LOL!! Let me inform you point blank KiMare, you haven proven that you are totally incapable of comprehending rationalization, be it mine, the Pope's or the pan handler on the street corner that you sped by today on your way home in order to avoid donating the three quarters on your dashboard.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
any person should be given minority status.
Thank you for proving my point. NOWHERE did I "rationalize" anything at all about a minority status. Also, nowhere at all did I "rationalize" anything at all about handicapped status. And NOWHERE at all does handicapped status or minority status have a f*cking thing to do with the institution of marriage.

But please, do not let these facts get in the way of your diatribe!! Watching you display what a complete moron you are is fascinating!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#156236 Aug 24, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you on the subject of marriage, I can find no reason to deny homosexuals the same privileges that you and I enjoy.
Bite your toungue, you should know better than to agree with me on anything. You are hence forth doomed in this thread for doing so..
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally I want the courts/government to stay out of my day to day life as much as possible. The problem with DOMA on a federal level is that the legislation clearly discriminates against same sex couples, in that it denies them the same rights afforded to opposite sex couples.
The problem with DOMA was a Constitutional one. The Federal Government lacks the enumeration of power to regulate marriage. That is a matter left to the States. If a state should choose to allow marriages by same sex couples then they have no choice but to honor said marriage just like any other. This is yet again another example of the supreme power the States have over the Fed.
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
When we as a nation, have states that allow SSM and others denying SSM, it makes it difficult to move from state to state, the licence/marriage no longer is portable.
It sucks that I must get a concealed carry permit in each State in order to carry, this doesn't make it an equal rights issue.
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a drivers licence that is issued in Wisconsin, and is valid in all 50 states.
You license is only valid because it meets the criteria of all 50 States. There are some people whom have a license which is not valid in all states, as some states allow drivers as young as 14, that license would not be valid in all 50 States. But beyond that, that is a result of State legislation not federal, same with marriage. All State's in the past have accepted that a marriage was one man and one woman, as a result they decided there was no need to request a new license when taking up a new residence. Again this was a choice of the State, much like a drivers license, a state could decide that you would require a valid marriage license from their State upon taking up residence. Again this wasn't a result of a court case or a federal law, it is a decision the States made.
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
If I move, I can apply and receive a new licence from another state.
You must still take the driving exam in the new State of residency and pass, they do not simply issue you a new license.
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is different, heterosexuals are recognized in all 50 states no need to reapply. I know its a stretch but I hope you catch my drift. If the courts need to intervene to give gays ad lesbians the same privileges so be it.
I previously explained why this is so. And the 14th does not compel one state to adopt the laws of another. Remember that concealed carry permit?
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't agree that the 14th amendment applies to the subject of SSM, I on the other hand feel that it does. I am by no means a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, just a regular guy who feels that denying gays and lesbians marriage is flat out discrimination. That's just my humble opinion.
It's not that I don't agree, it's that the men who drafted the Amendment do not agree. YOu should seriously take the time to read the congressional debate and the state ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, it will give you an entirely new perspective on the true meaning of this Amendment.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#156237 Aug 24, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU have no point and all you have been told is basic truth and facts........now, if it is perverted in your opinion because Gays do it.....then you must agree that it is perverted if straights do it, right?
And as usual you totally ignore the sites that give teenagers information about sex that involves straight teens, but make a huge issue out of a book supposedly handed out to gay youths.......what a hypocrite you are!!!
Did you miss this, or you just trying to ignore it?

Then how is it your place to tell others to believe that Gays and Lesbians for the most part are not depraved?
Hey Rittardo

Downey, CA

#156238 Aug 24, 2012
Ob, and, Rittardo.

Is this some sort of "job" for you? What's the pay rate? Ya get insurance, vacation, retirement plan with that?

Seriously, get a life. You're doing no one any good here.

Well that's not exactly true. I do find you amusing.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#156239 Aug 24, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not read my response to you? You are entitled to your opinion.....but that doesn't make it truth or fact and if what you consider is depraved.....do you not consider straights who do the same thing....depraved?
I not only read it, I re-posted it. You said it was not anyone's place to tell others what to believe or think, then you did just that by stating people should not believe that Gays are depraved.

So, I am asking you, why is it your place to tell others how and what to think?

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156240 Aug 24, 2012
Hopefully, for those with ounce of common sense, KiMare's post is close to an end!! Bear with me conclude my responses to what I now recognize as the stupidest person on earth! Quite frankly, I'm convinced that Brain_G's parents had idiot twins!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, your choice of the word 'requirement' is not required.
Why is it not required? Because of your made up statistics? Because not all handicapped people are in wheelchairs? Because there IS a requirement to procreate before one can get married?

Help us out here KiMare. Why is my pointing out to you that procreation is not now, nor will it ever be, a requirement of marriage not a requirement to mention given that you have established your entire "argument" around it?

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Putting your hand on your beloved buybull, pretend that you are on the witness chair. One simple question is asked of you. You are told to respond with either "yes" or "no". Here's the question KiMare. Are you ready?!!! LOL

Here's the question you have sworn to answer, under penalty of perjury. You ready? Can you guess what it is?!!

IS PROCREATION A REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE?

What's your answer KiMare? The verdict is not swayed by how many people DO procreate. Nor is it swayed by how many people want to procreate. Nor is it swayed by the possibility of procreation. The question is very simple. IS PROCREATION NOW, OR EVER IN THE PAST, A REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE?

What's the answer KiMare? You are sworn in on your beloved bible? You gonna lie to the court and to your god? What's it gonna be? The truth, or more bullshit about wheelchairs?!!!!! LOL!!!

Damn you are pathetic.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is such a ponderous propensity for procreation the rare exceptions are ignored.
LOL!!!! Hot damn you are one hot mess!!!

Then please KiMare, present the reasons why this "ponderous propensity for procreation" must be NOT ignored for gay couples.

***crickets chirping*******

Do you even realize that this is about the 3rd or 4th time that you have shot your own argument in the head??!!! Damn, I thought you were stupid, but honestly, you have given stupidity a whole new level just with one post!!! You're are the idiot's idiot!!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay unions show themselves to be distinct relationships by their ponderous propensity... no, their absolute inability to co-procreate ever.
Really? That's your closing? Guess the two boxes of wine you've been sipping on have run dry!

"Ponderous propensity"!!! Wow!! Basically translated as "heavy inclanation". So according to you and your flowery stupid narrative, "Gay unions show themselves to be distinct relationship by their heavy inclination...no, their aboluste inability to procreate ever."

Yeah, nothing spells out "stupid moron" like you KiMare!!

Hey, since you are already exposed for being a stupid mother f*cking moron of the nth degree, why don't you answer a little question for me!??

In order to marry, must a couple be able to procreate? Yes or no?

LOL!!!!! I look forward to your 185964300 word response!!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#156241 Aug 24, 2012
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
I not only read it, I re-posted it. You said it was not anyone's place to tell others what to believe or think, then you did just that by stating people should not believe that Gays are depraved.
So, I am asking you, why is it your place to tell others how and what to think?
I clearly stated it's NOT your place or mine to tell others how to live their lives......take that any way you want to!!!

I said you are entitled to your opinion......but it is my opinion that Gays and Lesbians are no more depraved as any other person is or isn't!!!!

Get it now? Probably not!!!

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.

Chino Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Trojan 27,931
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 9 hr nick 710
Man enters plea in abduction, rape (May '10) 9 hr Set u straight 33
Apple Valley's Slawson to retire after 12 years... (Jul '10) 21 hr Justin Fashanu 10
UFO sighting at Lake Elsinore. (Mar '11) Fri Gaddie 24
Boy released in San Bernardino triple shooting ... (Nov '09) Thu Jay 7
Man dies after assault at West Covina shopping ... (Sep '12) Thu BIGCUCUY VKHA 20

Chino Hills News Video

Chino Hills Dating
Find my Match

Chino Hills Jobs

Chino Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chino Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chino Hills

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]