Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193849 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws against polygamy predate laws against same-sex marriage by a century. What you're implying is that if Prop. 8 had not passed and if DOMA hadn't been legislated, then polygamy would be legal. And that isn't the case.
No that's not what I am implying. You are wrong, where did you get that idea?

I am stating that prop 8 prohibits polygamy as much as it does SSM.
You disagree?
sheesh

United States

#193850 May 30, 2013
laughing man wrote:
As we all know, the homosexists claim that "everybody" supports them, when in reality all that backs them are crooked politicians and the Common Man.
But don't take my word for it. Here's the lowest common denominator in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wzuEOr2D8woXX
With people like that on their side, who needs enemies?
Mash those smilies until Death, dimwits.
Here are some bright sparks for you. You wanna rub elbows with them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193851 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
By George, I think you've finally gotten it! Polygamy isn't my issue. I don't support it.
MLK you ain't! He fought for freedom for all races, not just his favorite one.

So you are saying marriage equality should not be for polyamorists too? Is that equality? No of course it's not.

So, the bottom line is you don't really support marriage equality. You just want more of the same. Rights only for marriages you approve of.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193852 May 30, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some bright sparks for you. You wanna rub elbows with them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lUPMjC9mq5YXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/10/10/tea-par...
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#193853 May 30, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some bright sparks for you. You wanna rub elbows with them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lUPMjC9mq5YXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I struck a nerve, as always.

I'm laughing at you, Brainiac.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#193854 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
No, not the Occutards!!!!

*snicker*
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#193855 May 30, 2013
It is CHILD ABUSE when Government licensed organizations DISCRIMINATE against LITTLE CHILDREN who believe membership in the Boy Scouts should be limited to boys who are morally straight. Please write your Congressman! DEMAND the tax exempt status of the Boy Scouts of America be ENDED NOW.

Ronald

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#193858 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you distinguish pedophiles who molest only boys from those who molest only girls?
There's no need to make that distinction, given that it is a sex crime, not a consensual act.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193859 May 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
So you make an unsubstantiated claim and then quit. Brilliant.
Dismissed.
Sorry honey, you were already dismissed for ignorant, outrageous statements about children and family.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193860 May 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't accept adoption as society accepts adoption. Adoptive parents are not parents in your world. They are less than. Be sure to tell that to Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
I accept adoptive parents exactly as society and social science does.

As I stated, they are one of several default options, specified as so by the word 'adoptive' preceding the word parent.

According to numerous broad and long term studies they fail to measure up to parents on the average.

You are the one denying the distinctions and the broad based disadvantages to the child because "children are adaptive".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193861 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Here is the disappointing reality of all this gay twirl.
A ss couple will only ever be only a duplicated HALF of marriage.
Nothing can change that.
You can't force people to deny that reality.
A law or a piece of paper cannot change it.
The result can ONLY be another fruitless gay encounter.
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha! You're a riot.
You don't get to decide "reality."
I am married. We are both husbands. Nothing you can say can ever matter to those facts.
But I kind of enjoy that it bothers you so much.
I see no difference between what you said and I said.

Care to clarify?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193862 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you distinguish pedophiles who molest only boys from those who molest only girls?
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you need to do your research on pedophilia. We all know these answers already.
Come back when you are better prepared for a debate.
Honey, why don't you simply educate me?

I'd really love to hear it from you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193863 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read my post it would be clear. There are only pedophiles. There is no distinction between those pedophiles who molest only boys and those who molest only girls. Legally, there is no difference and medically/psychologically there is no difference.
There is to the boys and the girls.

And they are distinct pedophiles.

Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?

Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193865 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No that's not what I am implying. You are wrong, where did you get that idea?
I am stating that prop 8 prohibits polygamy as much as it does SSM.
You disagree?
How can it prohibit something that was already against the law? That's like saying Californians passed a proposition to outlaw murder.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193866 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
Then should we distinguish between Catholic pedophiles and non-Catholic pedophiles? Should we distinguish football coach pedophiles and non-football coach pedophiles?

There is nothing politically correct about the current laws and medical diagnoses.

What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You know it; I know it; everybody reading your posts knows it.

Give up, hater. Go back to "church school".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193867 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
MLK you ain't! He fought for freedom for all races, not just his favorite one.
So you are saying marriage equality should not be for polyamorists too? Is that equality? No of course it's not.
So, the bottom line is you don't really support marriage equality. You just want more of the same. Rights only for marriages you approve of.
Maybe this will help you to understand... I support marriage equality for same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples. I do not support polygamy.

Your continuous and contrived astonishment of my position on this issue does not sway me.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193868 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How can it prohibit something that was already against the law? That's like saying Californians passed a proposition to outlaw murder.
Many states defense of marriage acts prohibit same sex marriage which was already prohibited.

I'm sorry if you feel polyamorists are horning in on your suffering, but they are suffering exactly the same as you. And they deserve the same relief that you demand.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193869 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then should we distinguish between Catholic pedophiles and non-Catholic pedophiles? Should we distinguish football coach pedophiles and non-football coach pedophiles?
There is nothing politically correct about the current laws and medical diagnoses.
What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You know it; I know it; everybody reading your posts knows it.
Give up, hater. Go back to "church school".
I think that you insisting that pedophiles who molest only boys and never girls are not gay is ridiculous. But PC is ridiculous so that's that.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193870 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you distinguish pedophiles who molest only boys from those who molest only girls?
<quoted text>
Honey, why don't you simply educate me?
I'd really love to hear it from you.
All pedophiles are straight according to the PC handbook. It would be homophobic to say one was gay! But it's fine to call them all straight.

PC makes no sense, but that's the nature of it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193872 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then should we distinguish between Catholic pedophiles and non-Catholic pedophiles? Should we distinguish football coach pedophiles and non-football coach pedophiles?
There is nothing politically correct about the current laws and medical diagnoses.
What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You know it; I know it; everybody reading your posts knows it.
Give up, hater. Go back to "church school".
If those designations would protect the child, yes.

But you know they don't.

You also know what I suggest does protect them, and the only reason it is not used is political correctness. To the detriment of the child.

However, more than gay pedophiles jumping for joy, the Scouts are careful about opposite gender leaders in camping situations with Scouts. A responsible recognition to the power of mating behavior. Homosexuals are exempt from that temptation and discretion?

All this is just another example of homosexuals throwing common sense and children under the bus to fulfill their fantasy and denial.

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
60's red Biplane over east hemet 8 hr JAD 1
HPD Volunteers Wed rajain cajin 1
News Videos show suspect in Hemet rapes (Dec '07) Jul 18 tellinitlikeitis 8
News HemetHEMET: Food market's ex-owner convicted of... (Oct '14) Jul 17 snapper loccos 17
How ghetto is the Burger King in Hemet? (Dec '12) Jul 16 reccejr562 35
hemet fireworks? (Jul '09) Jul 14 tellinitlikeitis 40
Flying the Mexican Flag in front of a Menifee Home (Oct '09) Jul 13 JuJu 31

Hemet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages