Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#180491 Feb 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The huge difference is that straights have an option, gays don't. However, in either case, Anal sex is inherently Harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Moreover, MOST people don't engage in anal sex. Something about common sense...
Smirk.
Are you saying gays Have to have anal sex? No more than straights have to have vaginal sex. It isn't mandatory. There are a few other options.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180492 Feb 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down. They are not my buddies.
I suppose you'll never apply for a job at the American Civil Liberties Union. Since you believe unpopular people don't deserve civil liberty.
Yeah I am laughing a lot, people are starting to notice

seriously why did your "oh so concerned" buddies in Utah fund the campaign to oppose marriage equality?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180493 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
Now it begs the question, if your heroes in Utah are so much for marriage equality, why did they fund the campaign in California opposing it?
How do your heroes on death row in prison feel about it?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180494 Feb 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
How do your heroes on death row in prison feel about it?
I don’t have any hero’s on death row

but it is interesting that you invoke Utah, the very state that is the champion of fundraising opposed to marriage equality.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#180495 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
Now it begs the question, if your heroes in Utah are so much for marriage equality, why did they fund the campaign in California opposing it?
Kody, and Mrs Brown, and Mrs Brown, and Mrs. Brown, and let's not forget Mrs. Brown, all support mmarriage equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180496 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I am laughing a lot, people are starting to notice
seriously why did your "oh so concerned" buddies in Utah fund the campaign to oppose marriage equality?
So now your argument is shifting to the "Frankie's heroes in Utah" straw man?

They are not my heroes. I'm not going to bite.

They deserve the same civil rights as you do. Even the .005% of them that are criminals. Which is by the way the about same percentage for you, a heterosexual male.

Do you ban marriage because some men abuse their wives? Do you ban marriage because some men marry underage girls?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180497 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t have any hero’s on death row
but it is interesting that you invoke Utah, the very state that is the champion of fundraising opposed to marriage equality.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gay-Polygamy/14...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180498 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t have any hero’s on death row
but it is interesting that you invoke Utah, the very state that is the champion of fundraising opposed to marriage equality.
https://harvard.qualtrics.com/SE/...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180499 Feb 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So now your argument is shifting to the "Frankie's heroes in Utah" straw man?
They are not my heroes. I'm not going to bite.
They deserve the same civil rights as you do. Even the .005% of them that are criminals. Which is by the way the about same percentage for you, a heterosexual male.
Do you ban marriage because some men abuse their wives? Do you ban marriage because some men marry underage girls?
You really need to learn to read, I am not opposed to it. I have no argument against it.

But I find it hilarious that you are invoking Utah as the people that are championing marriage equality, the same people that are the primary funding for Prop 8

Sort of a contradiction isn’t it?
Doublespaced

Covina, CA

#180500 Feb 20, 2013
Just a "out of towner" poster, must have hit the repeatee key.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180501 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to learn to read, I am not opposed to it. I have no argument against it.
But I find it hilarious that you are invoking Utah as the people that are championing marriage equality, the same people that are the primary funding for Prop 8
Sort of a contradiction isn’t it?
ha ha very hilarious.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gay-Polygamy/14...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180502 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to learn to read, I am not opposed to it. I have no argument against it.
...
Right. You have no argument against them beyond the fact that the are represented by child molesters and welfare cheats and dreaded fundies. You know, my heroes!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#180503 Feb 20, 2013
I will remember it though, when you think of champions of marriage equality.... you think... Utah!

( chuckle )

I guarantee you, just about no one else thinks that

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180504 Feb 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
child molesters and welfare cheats and dreaded fundies. You know, my heroes!
Yes thats you.
BeeGees

Covina, CA

#180505 Feb 20, 2013
Glendora, California residents are once again finding there so called elected civic leaders are just like the ones before, passing the buck.

Instead of truly fixing the problem or problems that face the day to day operations of this local government, they resort to the tired and true method of raising taxes.

When they stomped around and proclaimed that if elected they would fight back and make those hard choices and spare effort in reducing the cost of government. This as you all see was another big fat lie.

Any fool can spend money and or waste money or even make up excuses as to why they can't stop the spending when in power. But those who are willing to take on the task and actually reduce spending or obligations to ones city government are hard to find and keep in office.

I'm not talking about the dead beat hanger-on's who haunt city hall and collect there paycheck and go through the motions of being productive.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#180507 Feb 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Anal sex is the key identifying factor of gays.
No, stupid, it's not.
Sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex is.
Most people who have anal sex are straight.
KiMare wrote:
It is the most intimate act between gays. You know I'm talking about the essence of homosexuality when I bring up anal sex.
I know you are lying when you say anal sex is the essence of homosexuality. If that were the case, there would be more straight homosexuals than gay ones, because most people who have anal sex are straight.
KiMare wrote:
As to it' inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature, I simply post a medical site that labels it a violation of design, THE MOST DANGEROUS SEXUAL ACT OF ALL, and REQUIRING an anal condom and lubrication to even begin to bring it into a risky behavior!
Well, let's hope your mom used those things when she gave some man a "backstage pass".
KiMare wrote:
You never mention the issue of playing in fecal matter,
It's a sad thing your parents couldn't afford silly putty.

KiMare wrote:
because even denial has a hard time getting past that. Moreover, you prove the demeaning nature by your forklift backing up when anyone addresses the issue.
Instead you throw out the gay twirl mantra,'everybody does it', as if that makes it okay. Childish reasoning at the most.
All of this denies the obvious. If the anus had evolved for intercourse, it would be a vagina.
LOL. So when are straight men going to start turning down anal sex from women saying, "If the anus had evolved for intercourse, it would be a vagina.". And they have a vagina only an inch away.
KiMare wrote:
Instead, it ends up being a default hole because gays have no option for a vagina.
As to epi-marker mistakes, thank you for a the reference to study.
Your defense however is silly. Nature does have it's reasons, and the study is an example of humans understanding them.
In this case, epi-marker 'notes' are accidentally left on the genetic code of opposite gender children of a parent. They have even identified situations where the accident most often occurs.
It is quickly becoming obvious that reality will require GLBT's to face the fact that they are in the ranks of the genetically handicapped. I would suggest you will find far less opposition developing rights by operating from a basis of reality, that historically people know by intuition, rather than demanding that people accept your denial.
Think about it.

Speaking of being genetically handicapped:
Do you think you should have been aborted?
LOL!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#180508 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, the surrender argument. But losing a father isn't as great a loss as losing a mother, in terms of demographics. I'm not talking individual loss, loss of any parent is great and important; I'm talking about reproductive loss. Losing wives, mothers and sisters harms population growth more than losing fathers.
I've heard this argument from the pacifist left before; once the body bags of our daughters, mothers, wives and sisters come home, the will of the people vanishes like smoke and peace rules like the inevitability of death. I oppose that argument on the grounds of life.
LOL. You say things that make no sense.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>People don't get to choose the gender they wish to marry;
Well, they should.
So, when are members of pro sports teams going to be forced to marry each other?
Brian_G wrote:
women get to choose the individual man, nobody can redefine marriage based on personal predilection.
If you respect women, respect law, DOMA and Proposition 8 were legally enacted law. If government won't enforce and defend law, vote them out for government that will.
Female soldiers shouldn't get to select which job they want, if they don't physically qualify. The reason there are now women in combat is because they don't meet the physical fitness requirements. Combat is very strenuous and forcing women what they are unfit to do causes death, illness and injury. Good leadership means healthy troops.
.
<quoted text>Keeping women out of combat units because the don't meet the physical fitness standards is just good sense.
But what about women who can? I'm sure I'm more physically fit than you. I can do a push up.
You are just a stupid, woman hating jerk.
Brian_G wrote:
Now, the military has separate standards for males and females, along with separate job descriptions. If women get combat status, they must meet physical standards, else the jeopardize mission, life and limb.
Leadership is making moral decisions; if the left insists on women in combat, then segregated units are the only way to succeed. Else, we're just self destructing by political polarization.
I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Private behavior is private, I don't care about sex lives, I care about law and its change. Keeping marriage law as is, one man one woman, is just good stewardship. Many homosexuals share my view that court imposed same sex marriage law is bad because it takes from the legitimacy of referendum democracy.
So, when will prison rape become legal?
LOLSER!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#180509 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right, combat is strenuous and women don't meet the standard, most men don't meet the standards, of combat unit physical fitness. I respect reality, gender equality doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean you can behave unfairly or neglect valuable assets; if the administration insists on women in combat, let it be in segregated units, for everyone's safety.
You hate women, we get that.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>None have shown they can pass infantry or any combat MOS's physical fitness standards; that's why they don't qualify. Most men can't meet those physical fitness standards either; and our military strives for excellence. Lowering standards is a step backwards, toward defeat.
.
<quoted text>I support equal rights for gay people, just not special rights to rewrite marriage law.
What special right?
You homophobes always talk out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm pro gay
Liar.
You hate gay people so much you can't even reason. You claim that prison rape will become legal if gay marriage does.
Brian_G wrote:
because I always write, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

Also note, many gays and lesbians agree with us, bisexuals too!
Keep marriage as is because radical social change can be very bad. Very, very bad.
What? Members of pro-sports teams will be forced to marry each other?
You said they would. Has it happened yet in places that recognize gay marriage?
LOLSER!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#180510 Feb 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
I will remember it though, when you think of champions of marriage equality.... you think... Utah!
( chuckle )
I guarantee you, just about no one else thinks that
I was purposely using the people you would hate. It draws out your inner bigot very nicely! And it maked you very uncomfortable. Good!

But of course there are less hate worthy polygamists, even gay polygamists. Perhaps you'll tell me they have a bad image too? Not worthy the same as the dreaded Utah people? Or do you give them a pass?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#180511 Feb 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The huge difference is that straights have an option, gays don't.(snip)
LOL. Are you so stupid.

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.

Modesto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
susan bender missing since 1986 (Jan '11) Tue Sarah Chupco 16
Sheila Garcia Del Rio's scam artist Nov 29 Well Well 2
Two children among four found dead after mobile... Nov 23 openmind693 1
unsolved. murders Nov 21 unsolved 1
News Homeless Modesto Men Headed for Trial (Apr '08) Nov 17 Your Service Prov... 28
Did you know?... Nov 10 Your Service Prov... 1
Neighbors make your home HELL!! (May '08) Nov '16 Ready to detinate 31

Modesto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Modesto Mortgages