Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199590 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you a hypocrite?
What have I been hypocritical about Tizzy?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199591 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rizzy, please present the post in which ANYONE in this string argued against polygamy.
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Post numbers please.
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
What were their specific arguments against polygamy?
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
I have already completed one of your little post finding exercises showing you many posts of mine you said didn't exist. You didn't respond.

Your mentor Jizzy (zoro) or whatever his latest sock is called has argued polygamy shouldn't be allowed because religious people practice it. That's one example.

You yourself have argued against polygamy saying it shouldn't be allowed because "it's not marriage, it's more than one marriage". Or some such silly bigoted horsesh!t.

Rose_NoHo argues polygamy "is not an equal rights issue. It's just not."

Need I go on?

Hope that helps.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199592 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us the top ten bad things that will happen to you if polygamy is allowed.
Stupid B!tch. Chuckle.
You seem to think that I wish to discuss polygamy. You would be wrong. The subject of people having multiple marriages doesn't really interest me Tizzy.

Now you run along and pretend you've been censored like a good fundie!!
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199593 Jul 2, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Each year there are gains though. Minnesota just made same sex marriage legal each year more states do..Only time. I wish SCOTUS would look at the state bans on same sex...THOSE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT VERY LEAST IF NOT TYRANNICAL.
Juvenile rambling.

No, what's tyrannical is that you've been made a Protected Species with "hate crimes" legislation and "Diversity" sewage where you live in fear of your job if you don't celebrate the sphincter dwellers. Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.

Ask ABC employees about their job security, that if their news stories didn't include interviews with people on an approved Diversity list then it would reflect on their next Evaluation.

Look at the "Diversity" guidelines put out by the pinko SPJ less than a month after the attacks of September the 11th of 2001.

Diversity is dangerous. But you're obviously one of the Lowest Common Denominator, so all this just when in your ear and out your brain crack.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199594 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>He is pizzed that I pointed out the fact that the only people requesting Polygamy are doing so based on religious principles. What he does not understand is that as a nation we do not make or change laws based on religion. If we did, Same sex marriage would not be legal. The bible thumpers would have gotten their wish because of religion. That and he is a troll
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199595 Jul 2, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a base rule 18 and consent....Lets make it simple. Sound good?
If marriage is a right you cannot put restrictions on it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199596 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What have I been hypocritical about Tizzy?
Supporting marriage for people you like, Ridiculing it for people you hate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199597 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Damn you are stupid!!
Coming from the King of Stupid, that's quite the compliment.
1) Sexual orientation is ALSO a characteristic you idiot!!
Reading skills off are they? I didn't mention "sexual orientation" at all.
2) No, marriage is not JUST a union of both genders. It hasn't been restricted as such for over a decade now. It's 2013 stupid. It can be a union of both genders, or a union made up of only one gender.
A WHOLE decade?! Really, that long? Gee so in the history of the republic, SSM is a decade old.
3) There is no such entity as SSM, so your imaginary gender segregation doesn't exist. Just another of your lame fundie propagandist talking points.
Oh so you are the wife after all. You devil you.:). Or is it just more GLiBTee propaganda talking points?
Nothing makes you look stupider then when you try and use these ridiculous nonsensical terms.
Or when you claim SSM doesn't exist.
"gender segregation sanctioned by law"!!!! What a f*cked up tard you are!!! Segregation means that someone is being excluded
Yes, McFly, one gender is being excluded. You better check your spouse's anatomy again.
. Are you trying to imply that there are women that want to be included in the marriage of a gay man and are being excluded??!!!!
Nooooooooo Mc Fly, simply the state is sanctioning GENDER SEGREGATION in marriage, nothing was implied beyond that.
You are one f*cked up idiot!!! Tell me Pietro, when a straight man asks a straight woman to marry him, based on your terminology, he is...at that moment, segregating every other straight woman from his marriage.
Man oh man, you've been hitting the spike rainbow punch hard. When a man, asks a woman to marry him, he is asking her to be his lawfully wedded wife. The state sanctions a monogamous union of husband and wife. See both sexes included.
Hurry quick, you better address this "segregation". It's rampant!!!!!!!
Damn you are stupid.
Thank you, your highness, the King of Stupidia, the stupidest king in all the land.
3) If you are going to state that laws against inter-racial marriages are about "race mixing", then you must also acknowledge that laws against gays marrying are about "gender mixing"
Interracial marriage bans were intended to maintain white supremacy, and prevent "mice gentamicin of the white race".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
. So yes, they are completely and utterly comparable. Both are examples of when large quantities of religious bigots don't like the make up of other people's marriage.
So you will use laws against racial segregation in marriage to argue for gender segregation in marriage? An interracial opposite sex couple can, and have, accepted each other as HUSBAND AND WIFE. Their ethnicity doesn't affect that at all. They're a legally recognized union of husband and wife. There's the difference.

For a person who claims they're "gay", you're not happy. Plus you have potty mouth. Very bad Joh-née......very bad.
Sanos

Covina, CA

#199600 Jul 2, 2013
When our city council (Glendora) was up for election these “boobs” were our heros (?) and those who were running against our hero's were the boobs.

I always wondered how Judy Nelson, a real bimbo, could get enough votes, she did very little during the campaign yet she won. Judy was taking crash courses on city politics and practices from Chris Jeffers during working time periods in city hall, talk about wasting tax pays money, on her. She had been hand picked by the (dark shadow people) pulling the political strings in Glendora, California.

Karen Davis had an affair, a divorce and a bankruptcy, but what’s the dif, who cares, vote her in. The affair wasn't with another female as many thought but rather with a male Glendora Police Officer instead, you remember the cop who suddenly left and after the dust cleared returned to the GPD.

That's Reverend Karen Davis and Chaplin to the Glendora police department too.

Douglas Tessitor is on the verge of senility but he's still putters along as long as he doesn’t drool while in pubic view. The doctors keep him well supplied with pills and drugs, many can't wait for the next public viewing of his comedy antics.

Gene Murabito I can understand, I think he has a connection with the Mafia, cross him and its all over. Wasn't there a height requirement posted, you must be this tall before you can ride this?

What are the good, honest voters of Glendora, California thinking of when they vote?

All the while these (3) so called freely elected fools are getting fat and ruining Glendora, California. Mail ballots were cleaned before being opened.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199601 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that I wish to discuss polygamy. You would be wrong. The subject of people having multiple marriages doesn't really interest me Tizzy.
Now you run along and pretend you've been censored like a good fundie!!
All you have to do then is ignore polygamy posts. Easy! Now run along like a good little hypocritical fundie.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199602 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Again you have missed the boat skipper. One of the main objections to same sex marriage was that goes against a Biblical Marriage. Now if that lone objection was shot down, because we as a nation are in fact secular, and we don't change nor make laws based on religion. Why should we as a nation then allow ploygamy based on religion? I never said fundie now did I( with in the context of polygamy)? Certian sects of the LDS church ( FLDS), Islam and Buddhism seem to be the only ones looking for the abolishment of Polygamy laws. Again we don't change or base laws on religion. Never have and never will.
But that is exactly your argument against marriage equality for polygamists dummy. Religion. Duh.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#199603 Jul 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Juvenile rambling.
No, what's tyrannical is that you've been made a Protected Species with "hate crimes" legislation and "Diversity" sewage where you live in fear of your job if you don't celebrate the sphincter dwellers. Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.
Ask ABC employees about their job security, that if their news stories didn't include interviews with people on an approved Diversity list then it would reflect on their next Evaluation.
Look at the "Diversity" guidelines put out by the pinko SPJ less than a month after the attacks of September the 11th of 2001.
Diversity is dangerous. But you're obviously one of the Lowest Common Denominator, so all this just when in your ear and out your brain crack.
Talk about rambling.....That was total crap that made no sense. Whew

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199604 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already completed one of your little post finding exercises showing you many posts of mine you said didn't exist. You didn't respond.
I never asked you about posts of yours that didn't exist. You simply presented them as an excuse. It was lame, like your posts.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mentor Jizzy (zoro) or whatever his latest sock is called has argued polygamy shouldn't be allowed because religious people practice it. That's one example.
Actually his argument was that it is practiced under the guise of religious expression. And the federal government doesn't govern based on religion. That's quite different than what you said.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You yourself have argued against polygamy saying it shouldn't be allowed because "it's not marriage, it's more than one marriage". Or some such silly bigoted horsesh!t.
Ahhhh, there we go! I love it when you expose yourself as the lying sack of shyt that you are!!! I NEVER, EVER, ONCE argued against polygamy. NOT ONCE. I have never stated my opinion on the matter one way or another.

What I have said is that a discussion on people being able to have multiple marriages has nothing to do with this string. Just as many other people have stated. That is NOT arguing against it like you keep pretending.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo argues polygamy "is not an equal rights issue. It's just not."
Need I go on?
Hope that helps.
Stating that polygamy is not an equal rights issue, is not arguing against it. It is simply stating a matter of fact.

Go peddle your self created polygamy persecution somewhere else.
1 does not equal 2. Non discussion does not equal expressing an opinion.

But then, you got nothing else, so we are all sure your tired, lame schtick will continue. pathetic really.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199605 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting marriage for people you like, Ridiculing it for people you hate.
Where did this ridiculing occur you lying sack of shyt?

Post number please.

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199606 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The straight man in me is married.
The lesbian can't be married within her orientation.
However, she doesn't want to try and be stuck with Hillary or Janet.
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
If my math is right, since you are half lesbian, that would make your relationship a duplicate quarter portion of a marriage.

In your eyes, you wouldn't be eligible for marriage because you are half-lesbian. Your half-female genetic structure would invalidate your marriage--even if your half-male genetic portion is capable of breeding.

Perhaps I'll notify legal authorities and let them know that you are involved in an illegal marriage; that you have benefited from the rights and protections of heterosexual marriage, even though you are not technically a full heterosexual.

What's good for the goose is good for the half-gander.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199607 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
Is this very post not really an argument against polygamy? Your anger about it's mere mention speaks volumes. Your attempts to censor it speaks volumes.

Sure, sure, we know. You're not angry and you don't attempt to censor me.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#199608 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
That Frankie can't count? I quite agree.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199609 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Whats with the pitty card? I don't see you posting against KMare, Pietro or any of the others who shout down Same Same Marriage, or the pure hate shown towards LBGT people. Whats with that? How many face's do you have?
One can oppose redefining marriage without expressing "...pure hate shown towards LBGT people".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199611 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Again you have missed the boat skipper. One of the main objections to same sex marriage was that goes against a Biblical Marriage. Now if that lone objection was shot down, because we as a nation are in fact secular, and we don't change nor make laws based on religion. Why should we as a nation then allow ploygamy based on religion? I never said fundie now did I( with in the context of polygamy)? Certian sects of the LDS church ( FLDS), Islam and Buddhism seem to be the only ones looking for the abolishment of Polygamy laws. Again we don't change or base laws on religion. Never have and never will.
How about its simply its not good as a matter of public policy? That we as a society,if we're going to license marriage, should not be trying to undermine it. First "no fault " divorce, great idea at the time, not so great anymore. Now we have another "great idea", marriage is not solely about husband AND wife, now it's "spouses for life". What's next?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199612 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife.
That's your definition. Not the states. Sorry, their definition trumps yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it! Explain how does it remain he same "union", "institution", and/or "ceremony", when, in your case the wife is removed, and replaced with another man?
I removed no one. There was never a wife you moron. No replacement exists.

Seriously, you are one f*cked up moron.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or point out the obvious. "Straight", or "gay", aren't you forgetting the "mixed orientation" marriages? If, for example, a bisexual woman married a straight man, their marriage would be of mixed orientation. Let's not leave anybody out.
<quoted text>
That's it, don't hold back on showing off how stupid you are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there is, two men/women, it's an SSM.
Nope, it's still just marriage dearie. There are no legal documents in any state either for or against marriage equality that mention "same sex marriage" because no such entity exists. All legal documentation, all marriage applications, and all state and federal privileges related to this issue only specify marriage, because that is the only institution in play here. Your SSM is nothing more than a talking point. Using it to substantiate your "argument" merely demonstrates what an idiot you are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Three actually. The original one of husband and wife, and two others, one gay male, one lesbian female, each with its own characteristics, customs, tradtions, etc, to the extent that enough time has passed to allow for those to form for SSM.
<quoted text>
Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, they don't
<quoted text>
Why would gay people marry people of the opposite sex? Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh dearie, I'm just pointing out the obvious, which I know you are capable of observing, and have in previous posts. It's only propaganda among the more zealous GLiBTee rainbow flag wavers, to claim that everything is the same, or "equal" expressed in Orwellian terms.
Ranting like an idiot doesn't really help you hon.

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
To bakin_mom66 7 hr anonymous6 1
Im curious about an area of Hemet (Nov '08) 14 hr Hemet is not so bad 96
Nordstrom Rack DC at 1010 W. Fourth St. Beaumon... Apr 20 NORDSTROM RACK BE... 21
News HemetHEMET: Food market's ex-owner convicted of... (Oct '14) Apr 19 American 24
gay grandpa sex in sun city ca (Dec '15) Apr 19 Theinspector 2
complaints against Hemet PD (Oct '08) Apr 19 FuckHPD 215
warning! regohth based lifeforms !!!!!!! Apr 18 Ladybug 1

Hemet Jobs

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages