Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,161

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187649 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not the one draging them in, they are all over this forum and it was thier out of state money that funded the campaign for prop 8
If they dont bring up thier faith.. I wont either
Yes. It was you that dragged them in.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#187651 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is EXACTLY what they are saying.
That they want the same recognition of their relationships, even though, clearly, they are different.
On the license, No. But, as is the way of logic, if 2 men get married, then, they are engaging in homosexual behavior,
Huh? Do you mean they are having sex, or they are going to the theater? Many married couples have sex. Many unmarried couples have sex. and in your category, many single people have sex.

You have an issue with two men having sex. What's the big deal? Why does this disturb your peace? You come on here to vent, but you don't have to take seriously any criticism of you. Go talk to a psychiatrist and get some feedback.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187652 Apr 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Have it YOUR way.
Suggesting someone commit a FELONY hardly gives you the moral high ground. I'll even go one step further, punkie Brewster. It's also a safe bet to assume you would cheat on your taxes.
As always, nothing but angry irrelevant ad hominem.

But thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#187653 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone else didnít know, again you donít have the context of what you are talking about.
You are like a little child in the back seat that keeps asking questions when you only comprehend about every 5th word said
lol. He's stoned!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187655 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It was you that dragged them in.
Nope only responding to them, but we all remember that you are incapable of seeing past posts so .. shrug ... you choose to remain ignorant.

Your choice
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#187656 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope that you don't think that one who didn't know was me, did you? LOL Sir, my knowledge of English history is above question, that daughter of Catherine of Aragon, is no hero of mine. I would not have been burnt as a Protestant, I would have been burnt as a witch. Please understand my distinction as to why I would have been burnt.
Also..
"I am not the one draging them in, they are all over this forum and it was thier out of state money that funded the campaign for prop 8
If they dont bring up thier faith.. I wont either"
You, sir, have repeatedly brought them in, out of the blue. Where no mention had been made of them, you have guaranteed their presence. It would seem that as long as you drag them in, you find room to scoff, they are merely your scapegoats. Look up "Scapegoat", please. Better yet...Allow me..
"In modern usage a scapegoat is an individual, group, or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame. A whipping boy or "fall guy" is a form of scapegoat."
They are your "Whipping Boy", another English tradition, although all manner of societies use them. The English honed the use of the "Whipping Boy". We certainly know how to make a go of something, don't we? Did you see how slavery was a global institution, but, boy, what we did for the business, whoowee.......We honed it into unpopularity. I know, how racist of me...Except that slavery knew no racial bounds, until we Americans started to be subjected to "White Guilt", then, all of a sudden, damn.....Let's forget that Brits were slaves of the Romans, shall we? I'll be the Scapegoat, again...
Yes.... do look up the etymology of scapegoat.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187657 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I thought that a simple and clear example would amuse you. Pity. I'd had high hopes for you, but, as you have just demonstrated, you cannot grasp lower skills, such as comprehension of grammatical errors, so why did I think you would grasp anything higher? I fear I will have little luck teaching you anything.
keep trying lil' buddy.

if you're attacking spelling and grammatical errors then you've lost the war. when you understand that, maybe you'll run off to the corner and hush. that way, the rest of the grownups in the room can continue the conversation.

it's ok. someday you'll make it to the grownup's table.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#187658 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
It has diminished the meaning of it, dumbed it down to mean "an indiscriminate coupling". A business venture.
I doubt if anyone that is actually married would say that. And it looks like the wedding business is booming. I really doubt if many people would spend SO much money on a one day party, if it was just to celebrate an indiscriminate coupling.

I think you missed your true calling. You should have been a crepehanger.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187659 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope that you don't think that one who didn't know was me, did you? LOL Sir, my knowledge of English history is above question, that daughter of Catherine of Aragon, is no hero of mine. I would not have been burnt as a Protestant, I would have been burnt as a witch. Please understand my distinction as to why I would have been burnt.
Also..
"I am not the one draging them in, they are all over this forum and it was thier out of state money that funded the campaign for prop 8
If they dont bring up thier faith.. I wont either"
You, sir, have repeatedly brought them in, out of the blue. Where no mention had been made of them, you have guaranteed their presence. It would seem that as long as you drag them in, you find room to scoff, they are merely your scapegoats. Look up "Scapegoat", please. Better yet...Allow me..
"In modern usage a scapegoat is an individual, group, or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame. A whipping boy or "fall guy" is a form of scapegoat."
They are your "Whipping Boy", another English tradition, although all manner of societies use them. The English honed the use of the "Whipping Boy". We certainly know how to make a go of something, don't we? Did you see how slavery was a global institution, but, boy, what we did for the business, whoowee.......We honed it into unpopularity. I know, how racist of me...Except that slavery knew no racial bounds, until we Americans started to be subjected to "White Guilt", then, all of a sudden, damn.....Let's forget that Brits were slaves of the Romans, shall we? I'll be the Scapegoat, again...
Thank you for clarifying, they are not scapegoats or whipping boys here as we all know, they are funding the campaigns opposed to equal rights, and they are the ones carrying signs and putting placards on their lawns.

Thank you for clarifying that is not what I am doing

I have not said anything about "white guilt" I said slaves, I didnít say anything about color. You have a problem with white guilt? Ok... I donít.

Yes we had slaves in this country, yes other countries had slaves, yes slaves have been of a variety of races in different times and places.

It is a good example of.... Just because something was historically true... does not make it a good thing.

I donít want to go back to slavery because it used to be common in many cultures

I donít want to go back to burring people at the stake because they believed in this religion or that religion

I donít want to go back to the time when Alcohol was illegal in the US

I donít want to go back to the time when Women were not allowed the vote

and I donít want to go back to the time when marriage was not allowed to same sex couples as it is today, recognized in 12 states ( and one district ) and performed in 10 states and that number is growing every year.

Just because something used to be true, does not make it a good thing.

which is why I give no credit at all to the Historically or Traditional arguments.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187660 Apr 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>lol. He's stoned!
Reported! Irrelevant off topic nonsense, angry ad hominem, dopiness, pettiness, conjecture and a joke fail!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187661 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for clarifying, they are not scapegoats or whipping boys here as we all know, they are funding the campaigns opposed to equal rights, and they are the ones carrying signs and putting placards on their lawns.
Thank you for clarifying that is not what I am doing
I have not said anything about "white guilt" I said slaves, I didnít say anything about color. You have a problem with white guilt? Ok... I donít.
Yes we had slaves in this country, yes other countries had slaves, yes slaves have been of a variety of races in different times and places.
It is a good example of.... Just because something was historically true... does not make it a good thing.
I donít want to go back to slavery because it used to be common in many cultures
I donít want to go back to burring people at the stake because they believed in this religion or that religion
I donít want to go back to the time when Alcohol was illegal in the US
I donít want to go back to the time when Women were not allowed the vote
and I donít want to go back to the time when marriage was not allowed to same sex couples as it is today, recognized in 12 states ( and one district ) and performed in 10 states and that number is growing every year.
Just because something used to be true, does not make it a good thing.
which is why I give no credit at all to the Historically or Traditional arguments.
Too funny!

How about when a good cigar was a smoke?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187662 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for clarifying, they are not scapegoats or whipping boys here as we all know, they are funding the campaigns opposed to equal rights, and they are the ones carrying signs and putting placards on their lawns.
Thank you for clarifying that is not what I am doing
I have not said anything about "white guilt" I said slaves, I didnít say anything about color. You have a problem with white guilt? Ok... I donít.
Yes we had slaves in this country, yes other countries had slaves, yes slaves have been of a variety of races in different times and places.
It is a good example of.... Just because something was historically true... does not make it a good thing.
I donít want to go back to slavery because it used to be common in many cultures
I donít want to go back to burring people at the stake because they believed in this religion or that religion
I donít want to go back to the time when Alcohol was illegal in the US
I donít want to go back to the time when Women were not allowed the vote
and I donít want to go back to the time when marriage was not allowed to same sex couples as it is today, recognized in 12 states ( and one district ) and performed in 10 states and that number is growing every year.
Just because something used to be true, does not make it a good thing.
which is why I give no credit at all to the Historically or Traditional arguments.
I would have to say I admired Mary when she was much younger, but was a terrible queen.

Elizabeth was not beyond reproach either, however was a MUCN better queen.

One of my favorite quotes about her was from Raleigh ( if I recall, this is out of memory so not sure ), "her majesty did everything in halves"

LOL, she frustrated a lot of people, but still Elizabeth was perhaps my favorite English monarch, there are a couple others I admire. Henry the 2nd for example, although I donít have a favorable opinion of any of his sons. Particularly not the 2nd eldest Richard or the youngest John, both disasters.

Was it Churchill that mentioned we owe more to John's vices than the best behavior of any other king.( or something like that )Ö( chuckle )
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187663 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope only responding to them, but we all remember that you are incapable of seeing past posts so .. shrug ... you choose to remain ignorant.
Your choice
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. But it proves nothing. Again, you fail.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187664 Apr 8, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So once again we are back to the marriage is all about sex? Which is it you keep going round and round. Is marriage about some religious sanctity or is it about sex. Stop flip flopping you sound like a politician.
Now marriage isn't about sex?

Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.

It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.

Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.

Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187665 Apr 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does "marriage" exist in the first place? Why did it develop throughout time and place as virtually an exclusive relationship of either one man/husband one wife, or one man many wives?
Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, please. Thank you.
He is incapable. As soon as you get specific, he does a gay twirl dance to another spot, and wants you to answer HIS question.

He is clearly ignorant and immature.

Good luck.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187666 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. But it proves nothing. Again, you fail.
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your partyís idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.

What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187667 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny!
How about when a good cigar was a smoke?
Well I donít want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)

( I donít smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )

I donít like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I donít pine for the past.

"The good ole days werenít always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187668 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your partyís idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.
What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Yes. Same sex marriage is succeeding, but you are failing.

One could say same sex marriage is succeeding despite your best efforts!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187669 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I donít want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)
( I donít smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )
I donít like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I donít pine for the past.
"The good ole days werenít always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Just keep your smoke away from me.

And shuddup. Don't try and get cute with me you corny jackass!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187670 Apr 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Now marriage isn't about sex?
Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.
It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.
Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.
Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!
Smile.
so, if marriage IS about sex....then everytime we see a married couple, we're supposed to visualize them having sex? is that it? is that what you do?
or, if marriage is about sex, then perhaps is a public declaration of one's sexuality - what one prefers.

i don't know about you, but my relationship with my partner / spouse isn't all about sex. there's far more to our relationship than a physical act can express.

if sex is all i wanted i wouldn't be in stable, long term and monogomous relationship.

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.

Idyllwild Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... 2 hr SJ THEBOy 9
corruption with Riverside county CPS 3 hr lupita garcia 5
Residents Of Hemet, San Jacinto Still Cleaning ... 3 hr Chris 2
AV needs to get rid of ghetto "people"! (Oct '11) 16 hr Bro_Love 180
Hemet - The worst city to live in california 22 hr Really 12
bums on bikes Thu kmnine 5
Review: Hemet Family Dentist,Dr Vimal Patel,DDS Dec 15 Michael2327 1

Idyllwild News Video

Idyllwild Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Idyllwild People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Idyllwild News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Idyllwild

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:11 pm PST