Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,171

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
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177865 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think the judge's decision bodes poorly for the future of legalized poly?
I think you are wrong. I think allowing same sex marriage will help the case for allowing poly. It's just common sense.
Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.

Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177866 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wrote something you didn't mean. Surprise.
and he also lied about my hatred of the concept

I donít... I hate what far to many of the adherents do with it, child molestation and welfare fraud.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177867 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.
Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.
There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
It's not moot jackass. There are real people being denied equal protection. Good people. Despite your ignorance and bigotry.

You just wish it was moot. You're dismissed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177868 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fine example of your reading comprehension problem. Where did you see me write write anything about hating poly? See how you are? When you get an answer you can't dispute, you just make something else up to argue about.
I assume it because of your avoidance of the issue.

And I know it because of your infamous anti poly rant of a year or so ago. You can deny it but you and I both know it's true.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177869 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wrote something you didn't mean. Surprise.
So your being dishonest. Surprise.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177870 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not moot jackass. There are real people being denied equal protection. Good people. Despite your ignorance and bigotry.
You just wish it was moot. You're dismissed.
Yeah.... it's arbitrary, ain't it? LMFAO@you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177871 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
When I say the judges decision bodes well for poly you disagree. That's where.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177872 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and he also lied about my hatred of the concept
I donít... I hate what far to many of the adherents do with it, child molestation and welfare fraud.
Here comes the Big D "you're a liar" straw man!

Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177873 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.
Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.
There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Is your objection to poly on religious grounds? You hate religion, some polygamists are religious therefore you hate polygamy?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177874 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
It's common sense that removing the gender part of one man one woman makes it easier to remove the number part.

Even if Miss Thnig is too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Or both.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177875 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... it's arbitrary, ain't it? LMFAO@you
On what grounds do you insist on the traditional, ARBITRARY, discriminatory and indefensible number of two?

P.S. The answer is not "LMFAO@you"
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177876 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your objection to poly on religious grounds? You hate religion, some polygamists are religious therefore you hate polygamy?
well first you have to stop lying and say I have an objection to poly marriage, I have not said that.

Learn to read English, I have an objection of many of the adherents of it that use it for an excuse for child abuse and welfare fraud.

Take away those adherents ( which I think we should do ), and you take away a large number of the adherents and supporters of it.

What is am saying is that it just isnít an issue that will come up for the next decade or so.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177877 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume it because of your avoidance of the issue.
And I know it because of your infamous anti poly rant of a year or so ago. You can deny it but you and I both know it's true.
ASSume, yes you do, and most of the time you are WRONG.

You can't even follow your posts from 5 minutes ago. How can you possibly remember something that I wrote over a year ago?

The funny thing is, I do remember the post you are referring to. It wasn't my opinion. I told you I didn't have an opinion either way. Then you asked what are some of the opinions given by people who DO think polygamy is bad. I Googled it and copy&pasted it for your lazy ass. Now, it becomes "my" opinion, eh? Your memory is fucked.

How many times do I have to tell you I have NO opinion about poygamy before it sinks in? I didn't care one year ago, I don't care today and I won't care in the future. Pointing out the errors in your reasoning is NOT the same thing as taking a stand against polygamy. I don't care.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#177878 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Not all gays are atheists like you. You can be gay and believe in a higher power.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177879 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
well first you have to stop lying and say I have an objection to poly marriage, I have not said that.
Learn to read English, I have an objection of many of the adherents of it that use it for an excuse for child abuse and welfare fraud.
Take away those adherents ( which I think we should do ), and you take away a large number of the adherents and supporters of it.
What is am saying is that it just isnít an issue that will come up for the next decade or so.
The Big D "liar" straw man! It's old. And it's a lie.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177880 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
On what grounds do you insist on the traditional, ARBITRARY, discriminatory and indefensible number of two?
P.S. The answer is not "LMFAO@you"
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????

INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah

OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177881 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
ASSume, yes you do, and most of the time you are WRONG.
You can't even follow your posts from 5 minutes ago. How can you possibly remember something that I wrote over a year ago?
The funny thing is, I do remember the post you are referring to. It wasn't my opinion. I told you I didn't have an opinion either way. Then you asked what are some of the opinions given by people who DO think polygamy is bad. I Googled it and copy&pasted it for your lazy ass. Now, it becomes "my" opinion, eh? Your memory is fucked.
How many times do I have to tell you I have NO opinion about poygamy before it sinks in? I didn't care one year ago, I don't care today and I won't care in the future. Pointing out the errors in your reasoning is NOT the same thing as taking a stand against polygamy. I don't care.
So I am wrong? You fully support the legalization of polygamy?

Then why did you cut and paste others ignorance and bigotry about it? To prove you supported it? I think you are giving us an alternate history of your year old post. But at least NOW you admit you made it, you have been denying it until this point.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177882 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????
INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah
OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.
Translation- You lose. Bye!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177883 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big D "liar" straw man! It's old. And it's a lie.
Ok point to the post where I said I was against poly marriage and not specifically certain adherents of it.

you either do that... or you were lying

up to you

Other people have already pointed out your dishonesty, so they will get to see this too.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177884 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation- You lose. Bye!
Danths's Law ( chuckle )

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 10 min JOEL 71,035
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 12 Alex Montgomery 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:11 am PST