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.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189086 Apr 17, 2013
The Missouri House of Representatives on Monday passed a ban on the United Nations sustainability plan Agenda 21 after a spirited discussion of space aliens and how Walmart could avoid zoning laws to build more stores.

The Republican-controlled House voted 110-40 to ban local governments from adopting the Agenda 21, a broad outline of planning goals and sustainability targets. Agenda 21 was passed by the U.N. in 1992, but has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and does not contain the force of law in the U.S.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/agen...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189087 Apr 17, 2013
"Agenda 21 For Dummies ".
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189088 Apr 17, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And you, who repeatedly mistakes the term "slippery slope" for "logical implication", are wrong again. If we bend the rules for one group, we must, in all fairness, bend them for all. Else, we become an arbitrary dispenser of rights. And, again, I state the your claims that most Americans support your game is nothing short of fraud, use of a "manufactured consensus". A prefabricated sham of a poll, using carefully pre-screened group, designed to achieve a predetermined result.
Big D thinks if he calls it the slippery slope, that makes it not valid and dismisses it without argument.

He's very surprised when someone calls bullsh!t on that. And then he gets angry when they won't accept his simple and casual dismissal.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189089 Apr 17, 2013
Google, or Wiki, "REX84" and "Agenda21". Yes, something has gone horribly wrong. And, for added emphasis, Google the new intiative "Our kids don't belong to us, anymore"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/arti...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189090 Apr 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Drat! I'm slipping! You jackasses are agreeing with me.
Yeah. And I hope that I'm wrong, for once, but I fear where we are headed. DHS buying up ammo, NOAA doing the same thing. Our National Weather Service? Bulletproof "Stop and Go" booths, suspension of Posse Comitatus, and the new authority for the Prez to single-handedly impose Martial Law, it is adding up fast, and badly, for us. National traumas, on a weekly basis. That is exactly the justification neede for the single-handed imposition of Martial Law. If I'm wrong, then call me a fool, but if I'm right.....
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189091 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about there's no rational reason to have it. None, niente....zip...how did western civilization survive into the 21st century, on this quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Radical...before ya know it someone will suggesy that human reproduction is sexual. What a concept....sex between men and women makes babies. Who knows maybe one of those babies will grow up and call himself "Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects.....
Bravo! And ROFLMAO@ "Woodtick57" steak sauce for insects.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189092 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.
Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
Neither. Mother Nature simply tolerates your side, while refusing to reward it, with perpetuity. To use small words, she doesn't allow your kind to reproduce. She simply allows a few of you to appear. Now, if SSM types could reproduce.....I-yi-yi...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189093 Apr 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
let's highlight this from the above :
"In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage."
Olson's argument was not disputed.
Ahem..."Olson tried to set up a clear distinction " clearly implies that he FAILED to do so..."Olson TRIED to set up a clear distinction"...."TRI ED". It's right there, in black and white..."TRIED", "TRIED"...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189094 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:

"Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects....

Too funny!

Wonder what year the silly jackass was born? 1957? You think?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189095 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
Which reminds me... Mother Nature is a great argument for Poly supporters.
...I "herd" that...
:-D
and, Mother Nature gives more rewards to incestuous couples, than to SSSB types. At least, they get a new baby, as a reward.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189096 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I was angry with you, only sorry for you
After he taught you that you are a hypocrite? You should thank him.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#189098 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Dear SSMers
I am puzzled by your attitudes regarding legal polygamy/plural marriage. They seem to range from outright hostility to tepid support. "Marriage equality" is the mantra of the movement, yet there is a strong reluctance to include polygamy. Why? A seldom mentioned yet obvious objective within the movement is to shatter the monogamous conjugal (husband and wife) marital standard forever. To fundamental alter the very legal concept as a unique privileged union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. It stands to reason once that's changed, ssm is not the only logical path.
Polygamy is a valid form of marriage throughout time and place, far, far older than SSM, and more widely practiced. Why shouldn't it be considered? Is there a fear that to embrace it would undermine the SSM movement? A reluctance to share the spotlight? A sense of superiority?
Speaking only for myself, I am not the kind of person who could ever see himself in a plural relationship or marriage.

However I am very interested in a monogamous marriage.

So I don't see plural marriage as being a fight that I wish to undertake.

This is a personal decision.

And I think you're going to find that the "SSMers" aren't going to speak in a unified voice on plural marriage.

By the very definition of the term "SSMers", we are all in favor of SSM.

But to ask our opinion on plural marriage--to ask for a unified opinion--would be like asking us, "As SSMers, how do you feel about vanilla ice cream versus chocolate ice cream?"

There is no relationship between Same-Sex Marriage and Plural marriage.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189099 Apr 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
In this country, the "law" is the entity that determines if someone is married or not. The law defines marriage--not you.
The LGBT Community couldn't give a damn how you, personally, want to define marriage. If you wish to live in the land of make-believe, that's perfectly fine with us. Be our guests!
Your continued mental deterioration, while sad, is of no consequence to the rest of the world. We will continue to live our lives; and many of us will marry, in spite of your fantasies.
Society has defined marriage. The "law" is being used to chisel it open to all, thus reducing the integrity and honor of said institution.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189100 Apr 17, 2013
Across The Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
TOPIX needs to ban this type of hostile,marginal characters,especially now in light of recent events! Pot meet kettle! STOP stalking me LIAR! Reported again for harassing me and others and for repeated violations of the TOPIX T.O.S.!
That's twice that you have approached him, out of the blue. You are stalking him. Reported!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189101 Apr 17, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Let me guess. The plains that hit the WTC and Pentagon, where controlled by the government. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where all about big oil companies. Kennedy was killed by the CIA and Elvis is not dead.
The "plains" that hit the WTC? WOW! Like the Great Plains?

No plains hit the WTC, Jizzy. Calm down.

Too funny!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189102 Apr 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you rely on the law to create your reality every day.
In fact, it's the law that binds you to your wife.
Without the law you'd be just another couple who has shacked up.
See how that works?
No, we don't, you big boofoo. Why don't you explain it, to us? Without tears?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189103 Apr 17, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
No gashes allowed in my household. Although we do eat lots of pasta, you noodle head.
That is a sexist, anti-feminist remark that you've made there, and you've just been reported.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189104 Apr 17, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
The same is true of Gay Americans.
Not without legislation to make us accept your type of arrangement, to which you have no claim, unlike men and women who "shack up" together.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189105 Apr 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking only for myself, I am not the kind of person who could ever see himself in a plural relationship or marriage.
However I am very interested in a monogamous marriage.
So I don't see plural marriage as being a fight that I wish to undertake.
This is a personal decision.
And I think you're going to find that the "SSMers" aren't going to speak in a unified voice on plural marriage.
By the very definition of the term "SSMers", we are all in favor of SSM.
But to ask our opinion on plural marriage--to ask for a unified opinion--would be like asking us, "As SSMers, how do you feel about vanilla ice cream versus chocolate ice cream?"
There is no relationship between Same-Sex Marriage and Plural marriage.
Thanks for that answer...I think.....it didn't adequately address the questions I raised. Another try?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189106 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"You've be reported yet again"? Sounds KGB, or Gestapo, like.
"Gay marriage equality"? Is that Orwellian newspeak for wife, or husband, not desired?
Correct. Again.

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.

Menifee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Final Strike Martial Arts (Apr '15) 5 hr ArceliaD 3
New Sensory House at 29028 Heaton Ln. Menifee, ... Apr 12 Menifee Ranch Com... 6
Murrieta Valley Ranch Community is located at 4... Apr 12 Murrieta Ranch Co... 2
News Temecula man re-appointed to Californiaa s tour... Apr 12 NORCAL mom 1
News Menifee man surrenders in deadly Hemet hit-and-... Apr 11 Johnnys mom 1
Review: Perris-Downtown Metrolink Station Mar 26 METROLINK PERRIS ... 1
Review: Perris-South Metrolink Train Station Mar 26 METROLINK PERRIS ... 1

Menifee Jobs

Personal Finance

Menifee Mortgages