Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201891 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.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#176646 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tsk tsk Big D's fibbing again!
Wrong dipstick, he is verry much correct. You are here simply to deflect the topic at hand by using what you think is an equal issue. The cold hard reality is this, I have yet to see 2-3 percent of the population requset incest marriage or multiple partner marriage. Your tatic is plain as the nose on your face, we all see it. Now be a good lil asshat and go play on the freeway
The Worlds Biggest Lie

New Braintree, MA

#176647 Jan 22, 2013
We can thank the subversive decadent behavior that America has been sanctioning through technology and follyhood for decades. Homosexuals like to point out the failures of other human beings to rationalize their own perverted, unhealthy, unnatural behavior that is no way to go through life.
Thanks to our greedy, sick, and perverted polititians, ss parenting has now become a reality here in the state of Assachewsetts. The same state that has had a pedo problem and an incest problem for decades. But gay parenting is the greatest mistake made yet. To think that two men, gay or straight should qualify as parenting is preposterous. All children should be afforded the basic human rights of a female mother and male father to ensure proper balance and structure within any household.
All children should also be provided with a female mother as well to ensure nurturing and compassion that only a 'female' mother can provide in the childs most indelible years of their lives. But because of money, votes, and political correctness, common sense is always abrogated.
When a state per order of the court places any child into another home because of extraordinary circumstances or 'failure' of the previous parents, why on earth punish the child even further by placing them into such a confusing unnatural environment that is homosexuality. That's just it, if common sense did prevail and this argument was championed, because it should be, the entire gay anything dominoes falls down the halls of injustice.
So as usual, we will learn the hard way. Just like the time homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the early 70's that on the surface at least would appear has contibuted to the further subversion of America and the "real war on life and women" by DEMOCRATS. So here we are, morally, physically, spiritually, and financially broken for many reasons and this is one of them. Go ask Barney how Freddy and Fanny are doin. Or Bubba Clinton, and now one of the worst Presidents in history.
When one cannot honor their own father and mother or be trusted by their own spouse how are we to trust them as representing we the people. Because they no longer do.

I support an end to the federal reserve bank and to abolish the tax code and choke off this cancer that is the United States of Israelity.

Goodbye Rome
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176648 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since my posts seem to ask questions you are incapable of answering, why don't you just ignore me?
Your posts don't ask questions that I am incapable of answering. But lets get on topic.

I think overturning prop 8 bodes well for polygamy. Don't you agree?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#176650 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's fun to make you mad! You get so silly.
But mostly because you are a hypocrite advocating marriage be allowed to only groups you approve of and no others.
Really? And where did I say that? When are you going to learn to understand what you read and stop ASSuming?

FYI... you don't have the power to "make me mad."
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#176651 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Do you think the judge would make the same decision if it involved polygamy?
It would depend upon the testimony given, now wouldn't it? Was there ANY testimony given about polygamous relationships?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#176652 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI... you don't have the power to "make me mad."
He asks that so often, I think it is his primary motivation for being here.

That must be one sad little man
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176653 Jan 22, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong dipstick, he is verry much correct. You are here simply to deflect the topic at hand by using what you think is an equal issue. The cold hard reality is this, I have yet to see 2-3 percent of the population requset incest marriage or multiple partner marriage. Your tatic is plain as the nose on your face, we all see it. Now be a good lil asshat and go play on the freeway
So your logic is that if too few people want equal rights they should not get them?

Where would you draw the line? If ten people want to marry their sister it shouldn't be allowed but if eleven want to they should make it legal? What's your number? 100? 1000?

Why do you restrict rights based on the number of people who need them? And how do you decide the number?

You think about these things carefully Fruitloops, then come back and maybe you can try and play with the big boys!
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#176654 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts don't ask questions that I am incapable of answering.
Yet you never seem to be able to find the validating posts.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176655 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Really? And where did I say that? When are you going to learn to understand what you read and stop ASSuming?
FYI... you don't have the power to "make me mad."
About a year ago. You remember silly. But this is another of your straw men, lets just skip it.

Or maybe just tell us your opinion and stop making us guess? Whatever.

Do you agree that overturning prop 8 bodes well for legalizing polygamy? Why or why not?

Thanks!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176656 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Really? And where did I say that? When are you going to learn to understand what you read and stop ASSuming?
FYI... you don't have the power to "make me mad."
I guess you're always mad then! Thought it was just me! That's good.

So. I can only ASSUME you are against polygamy by your hostile ad hominem non-answers since you refuse to tell us.

I won't bother asking anything on topic now, I get the hint. You won't ANSWER anyway.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176657 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you never seem to be able to find the validating posts.
I'm not looking for them Miss Thing.

You are against equality for polyamorists and you are afraid to say it for fear of revealing your hypocrisy.

When you stop with the straw men, maybe we can get on topic?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176658 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> It would depend upon the testimony given, now wouldn't it? Was there ANY testimony given about polygamous relationships?
No, there wasn't silly! But overturning prop 8 bodes well for poly does it not?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#176659 Jan 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He asks that so often, I think it is his primary motivation for being here.
That must be one sad little man
Still mad eh? YUK!YUK!YUK!

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#176660 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts don't ask questions that I am incapable of answering. But lets get on topic.
I think overturning prop 8 bodes well for polygamy. Don't you agree?
No idiot, prop 8 is about the removal of an existing right, based on the lone aspect of two persons sex or sexuality.
You see dipshit at one time samesex marriage was legal in Calf. Prop 8 was desighned to remove that law based on the fact of homosexuality. Thats discrimination ya moron

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#176662 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So your logic is that if too few people want equal rights they should not get them?
Where would you draw the line? If ten people want to marry their sister it shouldn't be allowed but if eleven want to they should make it legal? What's your number? 100? 1000?
Why do you restrict rights based on the number of people who need them? And how do you decide the number?
You think about these things carefully Fruitloops, then come back and maybe you can try and play with the big boys!
Its not about the numbers at all.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#176663 Jan 22, 2013
Jimmy crapped corn wrote:
According to studies 70% of people who turned gay was because of being molested
That's BS, David.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#176664 Jan 22, 2013
Jimmy crapped corn wrote:
<quoted text> your doing someone in the Azz and I need help ??? Really ??? The last time I checked , my azz nothing wen't in
What about your head?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#176665 Jan 22, 2013
Jimmy crapped corn wrote:
have you finished reporting me oh loves to shove a penis up a hairy azz one ??
So, your mom has had anal sex, huh?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#176666 Jan 22, 2013
Jimmy crapped corn wrote:
what's the matter ? Can't handle the truth all you can do is sit behind a screen and let others know that you dislike the truth I am posting ? Weather you like it or not gays will always be out numbered and straights will always tell it like it is because were tired of you pushing your anal crap ideas on us .
Actually, stupid, most people who have anal sex are straight.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#176667 Jan 22, 2013
Randy-Rock-Hudson wrote:
You have made errors, you have lied, you have evaded, as you are doing right now, about that picture. My point. You are a con artist. A fraud. And it is not a simple matter of equal rights, as you claim. It is a re-writing of the definition of marriage, complete with legal issues, ramifications, and a simple case it is not. Any man has the right to marry a woman, ans vice versa. The way it should be. If some defunct couple wants to be "married", then let them marry someone of the opposite sex, and have an affair on the side.
But stupid, a woman doesn't have the right a man does, the right to marry a woman. And a man doesn't have the right a woman does, the right to marry a man. Even an idiot like you should be able to see that.

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Jan 13 Needopenow123 89
Review: David B Tolkan & Assoc - David B Tolkan... (Feb '09) Jan 10 Glades lake 31
News Trump's North Korea red line could come back to... Jan 5 BIKSU 4
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Dec 30 Smh 1,551
News Todd Fisher: Family fusion (Aug '09) Dec 29 Flake Cop 66
News Stamm won't face third trial (Jun '09) Dec '16 Disgusted 6
News Study: Illegal immigrants having more kids in US (Apr '09) Dec '16 Juan Illota 5,751

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages