Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201865 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.

Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199180 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're going to lie and tell us you personally did all those things. Ho hum.
It seems that you can not read, Isaid that is what the LGBT people have done. Now STFU
Bazzoos

Covina, CA

#199181 Jun 30, 2013
How did you get new batteries for your loud horn anyway?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199182 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us why you're here Jizzy. Show us even one sunstantive post. Or stop crying and whining. Have some dignity.
I have been posting against liars, trolls and asshats just like you for the better part of 3 years. I do and have told you many times. I support LBGT rights. BTW, its you that complains about not being taken seriously, constantly crying that no one agrees with you.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199183 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you should know you do it often enough.
I wouldn't know how to change my location, please clue me in.
Seriously. How do you that?
Move to Iraq or some other third world shat hole. Hope that helps
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199184 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law.
Squawk! Squawk! Watch the troll squawk!
Judge Rocco

Roseville, CA

#199185 Jun 30, 2013
WHY VOTE wrote:
Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????
Yo Dumb Ass! Sorry but the Constitution prevails over what groups of individuals want to do. That's just as it should be! Otherwise for example a racial majority could decide to discriminate against another, make them the only ones who pay taxes or subject to the draft...or anything else. There is in most cases no test of Constitutionality before a measure gets on the ballot so courts all the way up to the Supreme Court will have the ultimate authority to deciding whether these referendum measures will pass the test of Constitutionality. Sorry to bust your bubble amigo!
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199186 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Dinosaur species are extinct. Life forms change. None of those are because of over-population. In fact, scientists are now saying world population is reversing.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'. A clear oxymoron.
Gawwwd everything you post is pure bull manure.
UN Projects 9.6 Billion People by 2050
Jun. 25, 2013 - The latest population projections issued by the United Nation earlier this month suggest that world population is on a faster growth path than previously projected. The UN now projects that world population will reach 7.2 billion next month, 9.6 billion by 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100. That projection assumes, however, that access to family planning in developing countries will continue to expand and that fertility in the least developed countries will fall from 4.53 children per woman today to 2.87 by mid-century. Read More ยป
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199188 Jun 30, 2013
BOLO for Bob Finch wrote:
Why anyone would try to generate any type of response to Frankie is beyond me...I guess there are people who still think that they can win some type of argument with this guy?? How do you win an argument with a troll? This guy is getting off on any type of responses to him. The only reason he's here is to rile up anyone who's here to support gay marriage. His only goal is to piss you off...don't you morons see that?? Anyone that tries to argue with this guy, or gets mad from one of his posts, is a TOOL. But go ahead keep letting him piss you off...kudos Frank...after all these years they still don't get it...my hat goes off to you...you're good at what you do, what else can I say...
I don't see anyone mad, except Frankie. LOL He doesn't even know that the whole point was to stir him up to cause him to self-incriminate as a troll and spend his time squawking. He did this brilliantly. Get it? I was impersonating a troll to prove a point. Have a nice day.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199190 Jun 30, 2013
Judge Rocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Dumb Ass! Sorry but the Constitution prevails over what groups of individuals want to do. That's just as it should be! Otherwise for example a racial majority could decide to discriminate against another, make them the only ones who pay taxes or subject to the draft...or anything else. There is in most cases no test of Constitutionality before a measure gets on the ballot so courts all the way up to the Supreme Court will have the ultimate authority to deciding whether these referendum measures will pass the test of Constitutionality. Sorry to bust your bubble amigo!
are you a parrot? Why do you keep repeating what others write?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199192 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law.
....said Frankie while looking in the mirror. Poor thing, he doesn't see the irony in making that statement. I won't bother explaining it because he won't get it.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199196 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're getting a little better with cut and paste, very good Jizzy. Don't say I never helped you to improve your dumbass.
I noticed you can finally post a click-able link too, thanks to Frankie.
Now you are ready to start this month's lesson - Learning to post the link you are cutting and pasting from.
Thats nice fluckstick. Why did you not jump on your buddy KiMare , for posting bull manure? Oh thats right you're a bigot just like him. Very telling Frankie, very telling indeed.
Mikey

Long Beach, CA

#199197 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigots like you said stuff like that against SSM just a few short years ago. Look at you now! Congratulations.
Don't like poly marriage? Don't marry more than one person. Easy!
LOL You calling anyone a bigot...Oh yea familiar little quip, unfortunately it doesn't work for Poly. You already have all the privileged rights of marriage, now you want more! That's problem with Poly, it's not about recognition and love, it's all about Greed.
Mikey

Long Beach, CA

#199199 Jun 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is starving, its just that some prefer sausage instead of clams, or vice versa.
Is this the only registered Topix name you have left Frankie?
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199200 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw Jizzy, just try to relax. It's pride day! A day to celebrate!
Be proud. The party is ON here in the SF area. WOO~HOOO! I will definitely be lifting a few glasses to equality. You should too sourpuss.
Liar

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199204 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You just did in this post. You failed to distinguish between those who cannot because of a medical condition or choice, and a couple who is absolutely and totally incapable because of gender discrimination.
Moreover, I wasn't arguing law. I simply and accurately noted a major distinction between ss couples and marriage. You STILL can't change that reality, no matter how much you twirl.
2. People engage in numerous harmful behaviors, as distinguished from risky behaviors. Medical experts deem anal sex as 'the most dangerous form of sex'. A violation of the purpose and design of the anus. There is NO justification for anal violence. That is why it was illegal and still is in many places.
3. Even more silly stupid.
First, you clearly have no understanding of mating behavior's effects.
Second, where do you get that procreation can only be natural if the only reason for sex is for that purpose???
Third, the absurdity extreme of one child (how did twins happen) per sexual act.
Finally, you again just tried to argue that procreation is not natural.
4. You close with an ad homoan troll attack. If you had a logical, sensible argument, that would not be necessary.
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.

2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.

3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.

4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199205 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.
2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.
3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.
4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Agreed on all counts. You go, VV!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199206 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.
2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.
3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.
4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Then stop preaching having your nose in the wrong places is natural.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199207 Jun 30, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed on all counts. You go, VV!
Figures that you too would think it's natural to have sex with the part where the Sh!t comes out. LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199208 Jun 30, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL You calling anyone a bigot...Oh yea familiar little quip, unfortunately it doesn't work for Poly. You already have all the privileged rights of marriage, now you want more! That's problem with Poly, it's not about recognition and love, it's all about Greed.
Hey Bigot, why don't you stand on the pavement down there in hotland and melt your anger away? Are you forced to live there? LOL
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#199211 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too wordy.
What you really ment to say is that you don't have the attention span of a fly

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
What is Menifee Lakes? (Feb '07) Tue bob 22
Direct Energy Weapons in Perris CA (Oct '15) Jun 28 Fedup 3
News Lariat and whip master to perform at Pena Adobe Jun 20 iefbr14a 1
Weed Jun 12 Tyler 2
Poll Should Sun City Gardens Be Closed Down? (Jun '08) Jun 9 AMH 28
illegals in perris (Feb '09) Jun 7 fed up 174
Perris, California Weather Forecast Jun 5 Weather Forecast 1

Menifee Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Menifee Mortgages