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
Allahu

Covina, CA

#190033 Apr 24, 2013
Mother of the two Boston bombers.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva:ďI Donít Care if My Youngest Son Is Killed.

I Donít Care If I Am Killed.

I Will Say Allahu Akbar!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190034 Apr 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash!
We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.
The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.

The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."

Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.

So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?

To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."

To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190035 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Such pesky government interference...
So you have lost the argument and now you are simply going to say stupid irrational sh$$?

Wipe your mouth, you are drooling.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant.
Sure does, see Article V US Constitution.

A judge doesn't "evolve" our country. The SCOTUS doesn't "evolve" out country. Only a 3/4th's ratification of the State Legislatures "evolve" this country.

You should read the Constitution, it really doesn't take that long.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.
King George and the British Parliament used to say that too.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.
We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.
Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.
What an interesting statement- "Whether they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals."

No truer words have ever been spoken, Constitution be damned, we will get what we want.

BTW, you included that silly line-"you believe". It has nothing to do with "MY" belief, my position on the Constitution is based on the OPINION of those who drafted and ratified it.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? The Madison Journal on the Constitutional Convention? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The transcripts of the ratification debates in the States?

If you answer NO, than I hardly find you even slightly qualified to comment on what is and is not Constitution.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If marriage is an "Unalienable Right" than is cannot be restricted- not by number, not by gender, not by race, not by ANYTHING!! Since we agree that it can be restricted as has been stated many times when mention of: incest, polygamy etc.; are mentioned it is merely a PRIVILEGE extended to the lucky few.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190036 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You silly twit, the law is a mockery when it denies reality.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my 'opinion' that ss couples will only ever be a duplicated sterile half of marriage.
<quoted text>
Funny.
-I'm one of the rare ones on here where my identity IS known. But that hardly changes the fact that a law is corrupt when it denies reality.
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
Smile.
Sterility isn't an issue for marriage, just like procreation isn't. That it matters for a marriage is your opinion. That notion a same sex couple who hold a marriage certificate is not married is your opinion. Apparently you cannot even keep up with yourself.

Your identity is known? Nope, no one here has a clue about who you are. You do repeat your BS claim that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body while pretending you're also a chimera and a mutation. Which is it? Are you a man? Are you a chimera? Or are you a mutation? Until you can actually prove your "identity" I believe most of us here will just have to assume you're full of shit. The ol' Im a lesbian trapped in a man's body is a joke that was around before the internet existed. Get some new material.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190037 Apr 24, 2013
An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes
By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.
What in the name of Sam Hill does any of that have to do with same sex marriage? The number of gay individuals in a population appears to be somewhat constant. Probably something on the order of 2%. Permitting or not permitting marriage for same sex couples will have absolutely no bearing on life spans and debilitating diseases that accompany aging. The sum total of the "tax breaks" that occur due to same sex marriage will be far lower than that 2% of the population they comprise. Your argument is based upon pocket change, relatively speaking.

The benefits of marriage cover hundreds of items in addition to the tax breaks that protect procreation. Just how what percentage of tax breaks do you think actually do anything to protect procreation?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190038 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.
It took less than 3 years for Germany to go from a Free people to the Third Reich.

Sorry, I was just looking at history.
Presses roll

Covina, CA

#190039 Apr 24, 2013
Residents beware more lies are coming out of Glendora city hall with each passing minute.

This insane propaganda machine buried in city hall operates more like North Korea's propaganda lies.

Glendora, California.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190040 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fastest growing religions in America are Mormonism and Islam. Seventh Day Adventist have the largest percentage growth.
None of those are favorable to ss marriage.
Once again, I have posted the facts and nothing but the facts. You are the one distorting truth with hate.
Smile.
Mormon population growth rates have actually been slowing since they peaked in 1989. The increase has been below 3% for several years and is just a little over 2% recently. That amounts to 300,000 or so per anum.

The Muslim population in the US is currently about 1%. It will "skyrocket" to 1.7% by 2030. That is if the predictions are correct. Mormons make up less than 4.7%. No one knows what the rate of increase will be over the next decade or two, but if it continues at the tad over 2% where it has been stuck for a while, uh, BFD. Pardon me while I fall asleep.

Likewise, while other religions appear to be hemorrhaging, it would make the IDGAS about religion portion of the population appear to be growing faster than the Mormon and Moslem portion. As it is now about 1 in 5 Americans fall into that category.

YAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190041 Apr 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Mormon population growth rates have actually been slowing since they peaked in 1989. The increase has been below 3% for several years and is just a little over 2% recently. That amounts to 300,000 or so per anum.
The Muslim population in the US is currently about 1%. It will "skyrocket" to 1.7% by 2030. That is if the predictions are correct. Mormons make up less than 4.7%. No one knows what the rate of increase will be over the next decade or two, but if it continues at the tad over 2% where it has been stuck for a while, uh, BFD. Pardon me while I fall asleep.
Likewise, while other religions appear to be hemorrhaging, it would make the IDGAS about religion portion of the population appear to be growing faster than the Mormon and Moslem portion. As it is now about 1 in 5 Americans fall into that category.
YAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!
While many are falling out of favor with religion, there is still a vast majority of the population which would identify as religious.

Similar to the argument that our founders were not "christian" most were in fact religious to some degree.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190042 Apr 24, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the financial damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190043 Apr 24, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While many are falling out of favor with religion, there is still a vast majority of the population which would identify as religious.
Similar to the argument that our founders were not "christian" most were in fact religious to some degree.
The premise appeared to be one of a warning that the Moslem and Mormon populations were going to grow at a rate that would quell the gains that homosexuals have been appearing to make when it comes to the negative reactions to their mere existence. I think not. As more and more citizens shed their religious identity the use of religious arguments against same sex marriage may tend to follow the decline.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190044 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Sterility isn't an issue for marriage, just like procreation isn't. That it matters for a marriage is your opinion. That notion a same sex couple who hold a marriage certificate is not married is your opinion. Apparently you cannot even keep up with yourself.
Your identity is known? Nope, no one here has a clue about who you are. You do repeat your BS claim that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body while pretending you're also a chimera and a mutation. Which is it? Are you a man? Are you a chimera? Or are you a mutation? Until you can actually prove your "identity" I believe most of us here will just have to assume you're full of shit. The ol' Im a lesbian trapped in a man's body is a joke that was around before the internet existed. Get some new material.
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.

Smirk.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190046 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
What remains is your irrelevance and dishonesty. You've posted great loads of opinion you've claimed to be fact. Leaning on these two as proof of your "facts" is quite laughable. You will also, without doubt, stick with your schtick about being a chimera, a mutation, and a man trapped in a woman's body. All sensational lies in an effort to make yourself appear to be something you are not. Pretty sad, ain't it?
An observer

Mountain View, CA

#190047 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a dead argument, even the Supreme Court joked about it.
Should they deny anyone over 55 a marriage license, how about Vets that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies, should they be denied marriage licenses?
There is no law, anywhere, that will deny a couple a marriage license because they do not intend or cannot have children.
Procreation is a dead argument with respect to same sex marriage.
They hang onto that, because they donít have anything else to cling too, like rats running to the last dry spot on a sinking ship.
So you saying goverment should help one person collect pay for sex from other?
Or if I give my best friend a car I shell pay fees and taxes but I f* him it is free?
Why marriage to the sibling is denied?
why marriage to the multiple partners denied? Isn't possible to love two?

What is the business other people have into sexual relations of other?

If you see the only sexual aspect of the Marriage, you may say it is not goverment business and only up to churches or other public organization and would agree to you.
but most people of state care about protecting women carring child and procreation. And yes in this culture we are not going to test everybody for fertility - no need to humiliate people.

But so far that I hearing on this discussion - that goverment should regulate f* process and it is way outrages idea.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190048 Apr 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the financial damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.
I know that we are generally in agreement, and that you are one of the few who understand my position. My reply to you was simply to emphasize the point. You just happened to be the one involved in the discussion there that emphasis could be presented.

I wasn't really interested in the financial nonsense that was also in the post which is why I didn't reference them. People interested in "equality" should be screaming from the top of there lungs to end those benefits. I can't think of a more obvious example of inequality exercised through law.

You also mentioned that you don't see the government getting out of the marriage business any time soon. This is true so long as we continue to capitulate, expanding the government's role under the guise of gaining "right's." This is my biggest complaint with the same sex marriage movement, and how the movement has positioned itself and created its narrative. Interesting how an expansion in governmental regulatory control over citizens can be sold as increasing freedom.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190049 Apr 24, 2013
An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
So you saying goverment should help one person collect pay for sex from other?
Or if I give my best friend a car I shell pay fees and taxes but I f* him it is free?
Why marriage to the sibling is denied?
why marriage to the multiple partners denied? Isn't possible to love two?
What is the business other people have into sexual relations of other?
If you see the only sexual aspect of the Marriage, you may say it is not goverment business and only up to churches or other public organization and would agree to you.
but most people of state care about protecting women carring child and procreation. And yes in this culture we are not going to test everybody for fertility - no need to humiliate people.
But so far that I hearing on this discussion - that goverment should regulate f* process and it is way outrages idea.
You are free to go after those causes, go get signatures, fight for those rights that you feel need fighting.

For myself, I donít happen to be gay, but I do stand up for my fellow Americans that are being ( in fewer and fewer states ) denied equal rights.

Procreation is a dead argument, it was stupid when the lawyers brought it up and it was laughed at by the supreme court.

You are damn straight we arenít going to test anyone for fertility whether you want to or not, the ability or intent to have children has never .... ever... been a requirement for a marriage license, because form a legal perspective marriage IS NOT only about having children, and it never was in this country. It is a dead issue, and has no place in the argument over same sex marriage

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190050 Apr 24, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?

Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?

Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.

Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.

Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.

This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.

With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.

The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.

And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.

This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.

If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.

These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.

Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.

Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.

Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190051 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Too wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190052 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Very wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190053 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to go after those causes, go get signatures, fight for those rights that you feel need fighting.
For myself, I donít happen to be gay, but I do stand up for my fellow Americans that are being ( in fewer and fewer states ) denied equal rights.
Procreation is a dead argument, it was stupid when the lawyers brought it up and it was laughed at by the supreme court.
You are damn straight we arenít going to test anyone for fertility whether you want to or not, the ability or intent to have children has never .... ever... been a requirement for a marriage license, because form a legal perspective marriage IS NOT only about having children, and it never was in this country. It is a dead issue, and has no place in the argument over same sex marriage
Oh boy. Big D's "you are free to get signatures" condescending irrelevancy.

With the "SCOTUS laughed at you" twirl thrown in for fun and laughs.

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
corruption with Riverside county CPS 2 hr SAD BUT TRUE 11
How come all Hemet sex offenders addresses aren... (Dec '08) Thu lARRY mILLER9626 12
Review: R G Deck Coatings Inc Thu Annonymous 1
San Jacinto Woman Accused of Stabbing Boyfriend... Dec 24 lupita garcia 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 23 Amazed 12
San JacintoUnlock parks, San Jacinto residents say Dec 22 SJskin 1
Water main Break Shadow Mountain Way Dec 22 hemetone 2

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:33 am PST