Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201844 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.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182211 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
"If the federal government recognizes polygamy it will be much easier to repeal the state laws against it. In CA, one of these state laws is PROPOSITION EIGHT."
HUH? Prop 8 has nothing to do with polygamy you moron. 2 1/2 years latter and you still are clueless as to the very topic of this thread.
STFU with the name-calling until you type without making any errors, you moron.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182212 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
What posts? That's what I'm saying, you never mentioned it. I can't provide evidence to something that doesn't exist.
Which is exactly why I'm saying, it doesn't exist. You've never mentioned hermaphrodites and if you're so high and mighty on this thing and all "nobody-should-dare-get-o ff-topic-with-me" then you'll stay on topic and enlighten us about what you think about hermaphrodites marrying.
Otherwise you're just as dabbled in double standards as you and those who agree with you accuse our side of being.
You claim that hermaphrodites are neither man nor woman. Wrong, they are both. They have twice the entitlement to marry the same sex that any others do.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182213 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough with your hypotheticals about poly marriage, it's clear enough you don't support it.
"Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act")[21][22] was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo...
The ballot title of Proposition 8 did not in any way mention polygamy or polygamous relationships or marriages. It only mentioned the restrictions of the marriage rights of gay couples.
Now: I am going to go back through every single one of your comments posted on this forum and mark all of them "off-topic". Why?
This topic has nothing to do with the right to polygamy. If you're interested in advocating for the legal recognition of it in California, you can find a forum about it and comment all you like. If none exists, you can attempt to create one. But don't whine about it here. It has no place and your petty attempts to make Prop 8 out as anti-poly don't work now, nor did they ever.
Ta ta!
You, sir, do not have any authority to moderate anything about this forum. Enjoy marking all those posts as "off-topic". You have just joined the "obsessed" crowd to which JizzyTurd and Chongo are fully-fledged members.
Cheerio. See ya in 3 weeks, or so ...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182214 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Says Buttered Pancakes!
Watch out, Frank, he'll beat your ass in a Home Depot parking lot...Use that Japanese Martial Art he's been learning...Sushi-Fu.
MedowLand

Covina, CA

#182215 Mar 1, 2013
And they are of an runing forget the spelling it's just pavingmaterial to cover up BS being posted by out of towners.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182216 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Frank come on tell us all about jumping out of a Chopper in Nam.
Why don't you tell us what YOU'VE done ? Besides avoiding service ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182217 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I was scared and pumped on adrenaline. I jumped too soon. I misjudged how high we were. Maybe 12 feet. It hurt for a while and a little ever since but nothing debilitating until recently. Now I cannot walk and the docs aren't giving me a good prognosis. I had another surgery yesterday. Laposcopic surgery. Modern medicine is a blessing.
My age and the old injury combined, and here I am.
You're a real jerk and a creep, but I wouldn't wish it on you or anyone, Well maybe my ex wife...naaah. No one. Not even you or her.
Not being able to stand or walk is a life changing challenge. I'm up for it. I follow docs orders religiously.
Why are you even gracing that little turd with an answer ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182218 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You should look up the definition of CHANGE. You just said nothing changing but.... which means it changed.
And I am not that quick at calling people idiots, I have been here quite some time as have the others, I guess the fact that you just arrived to the party has confused you.
BTW, none of the items I mentioned that require changes in the law are "rights".
Frigging FNG's ...LOL Noobs rock....except in here ...
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182219 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It should make no difference to you, I'm FINE! Enjoying my life maybe even a bit more than I did before. And I have always enjoyed it. It's another challenge. I'm good at challenges.
Don't want or need any sympathy. Fire away, I can't walk but I still have my wits about me. And a sense of humor.
As far as the war, glad I went, glad I came back after two tours. I went there a boy and came back a man with goals. I used the GI bill to earn a masters in geology, and spent 30 years as a research geologist.
And I got lots of HOT SEX with the little brown ladies "take two, they're small"! In between the hard times. And GOOD DRUGS and cheap alcohol! No taxes!
Amen. And, S.M.I.B.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182220 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Can you imagine the loser who rates Rose_NoHo's posts "Brilliant"?
Anyone?
I found one.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_y...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182221 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 banned any marriage save that of one man and one woman.
I thought you wanted to deal with "what is?"
Not when it gets in his/her way...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182222 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)
Oh ? What about ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182223 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.
If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?
Who would pay for it?
And most importantly, who else but you would support it?
It is not a valid reason to grant a title of legitimacy. To a defunct, and clearly perilous, coupling.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182224 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, that's patently absurd, since of COURSE gay men and lesbian women are disproportional disadvantages and burdened by such bans.
This reasoning counted only exist if there were no such thing as people who can only be attracted to the same gender.
Try proving that one.
That's why this type of reasoning has fallen out of favor legally.
Deal with it.
Did you mean "disproportionately disadvantaged and burdened by such" disqualifications to lay claim to a title of legitimacy ?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182225 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like there was no discrimination in preventing interracial marriages, since all black and white people could already marry someone of the same race?
Did you read my post? The court explained the difference, and why Loving v Virgina as well as the race argument is not the same.

I am sorry that you have comprehension problems.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182226 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to hear that. Was it a hot LZ? Where you in the 101, or 82nd
Don't even speak to him about it. You have no right to do so. "Was it a hot LZ?"....What the hell do you think, you moron ? That he was jumping for fun ?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182227 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, that's patently absurd, since of COURSE gay men and lesbian women are disproportional disadvantages and burdened by such bans.
This reasoning counted only exist if there were no such thing as people who can only be attracted to the same gender.
Try proving that one.
That's why this type of reasoning has fallen out of favor legally.
Deal with it.
I don't need to prove anything you moron, that was the decision of the COURT..

I'm sorry that you don't like it.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182228 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I might be Superman who wanders the land for days given there are so few phone booths anymore.
Go back to Japan. We do not need you to add add to our "Dumb-ass" problem. And, cast no aspersions on a veteran. You should be so brave, as to enlist....punk.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182229 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
But this is factually untrue in some states, akpilot, and soon to be so in more. Gay marriage is expanding.
Civil rights movements throughout history do not have a history of being snuffed out easily, at least in this country. Maybe in North Korea or China they do, but not here.
Sorry.
Again, that was the decision of the court, I am sorry you don't like it.

And as far as same sex marriage spreading through the State's, it just may, but it should do so the correct way. The way our founders intended it, through the will of the people.

Funny how marriage is somehow a "right" that cannot be infringed when marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, yet the right to bear arms which is in the Constitution can be trampled at will.

Interesting.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182230 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already banned.
So?

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Sat Gay ray dave 115
Junior High Schools in Hemet (May '10) Jul 31 animal_freak1301 15
stetson townhomes (Aug '13) Jul 31 Unknown 8
What is there to do in Hemet ? (May '08) Jul 31 Molights 49
Poll Has Hemet become a dumping ground for parolees ... Jul 31 arizona bound 3
News Your Views - 06/03 (Jun '11) Jul 28 positronium 8
News Would-be bird rescuers ticketed by officers (Jun '06) Jul 24 Tacy Hunt 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages