Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201820 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#214940 Sep 7, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the point stupid .. go back to your drugs
No, I got the point. It was that you want to be a gay scoutmaster. Teach the boys cooking and campsite redecorating. Sewing frilly tent curtains and such. Felching around the campfire.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#214941 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet i can show the posts where i clearly state my support for marriage equality and you cannot.
i can also show the posts where you were asked to show your support and you have not yet do so. why is that francis? because you are a lying hypocrite. proven over and over again.
Try to relax and get on topic. This is not about I hurt your feelings and now you're trying to get even, it's about good people being denied equality by people like you.

OK Power trooper? Get over yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#214942 Sep 7, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
So ... you don't change your panties! at least he changes his socks.
YUK YUK YUK YUK! moron
Bluto defends Jizzy. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Bluto and Jizzy. It doesn't get much funnier than that!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#214943 Sep 7, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
The no longer PRIVATE BSA is holding its conference in TN today. Because of the gays forcing their way into the PRIVATE organization they are now refering to it as the "New" Alternative BSA. Wouldn't be easier to just start your own scouting organization and name it GLBTSA? it would have saved thousands of dollars by not having to change the rule guidlines on what a scout should be. This is another huge inconvinience to the private and hetero community. The GAY cult has an agenda, and that is to fuck up what has been right for ever ... You homos need to start your own schools, and social organizations just like we did. The BSA has lowered its standards and as long as the gay cult continues this roll we will all be second class.
Racial integration was not inexpensive nor easy. Any kind of equality movement that upsets traditional organizations is difficult.

But that's the price you pay to "get it right".

The way I see it, these organizations got to play unfairly for many, many years. Now it's time to pay the piper.

So stop your belly-aching. You have nothing to complain about.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#214944 Sep 7, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you aren't very good with math.
And no, WE didn't choose, a judge chose. The WE went against you twice, that's why you cried to the men in black.
If the founding fathers believed that a judiciary wasn't necessary to make sure that various organizations needed to be kept in check from a constitutional standpoint, then they wouldn't have created that branch.

As free Americans we have ever right and responsibility to take an action to the courts for a decision. We weren't the first country to create this kind of system.

"Majority rules" didn't fly during the civil rights era and it's not flying now. The bottom line is that sections of DOMA didn't pass Constitutional muster. And that's why those sections were overturned.

Now it's your turn to cry.

And by the way, my math skills are OK. I don't have to be a genius to figure out basic percentages. If you have different numbers, then I'd be happy to look at them.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#214945 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In the face of medical proof, proving it is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, and a clear abuse of design, you justify it.
Why?
Because it is the only way for gays to portray the intimacy of marriage.
The inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex not only exposes homosexuality as a sexual defect, a failure of mating behavior, it disqualifies equating ss couples to marriage.
When someone points that out, you don't counter with medical proof, you mount a personal attack.
Sad.
As I've said repeatedly recently, if anal sex were the harmful and demeaning act that you portray it to be, then our country would grind to a halt. Anyone who has ever engaged in it would be too ill and too emotionally spiritless to participate in society.

But that isn't the case.

There are risks involved with anal sex. But these risks can easily be eliminated if the proper care is taken.

Besides, as has also been pointed out to you multiple times, not all gay people participate in anal sex. If you let your imagination run free for just a few seconds, I'm sure you can figure out that there are many other ways to be intimate with someone.

This is especially true for lesbians.

No one is trying to copy the kind of intercourse that heterosexuals engage in. That's a ridiculous insinuation. Gay men know what they like and that's what they do.

And "In the End" it all boils down to one simple fact, Kim... It's none of your business.

I think that's what bites at you the most.

The fact that you don't get to tell others what they must do in order to live in your own notion of an ideal world just pisses you off to no end. Your desire to dominate creation is your Achilles heel. It gnaws at you so much that you have spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours reading and preparing comments to post on these TOPIX forums.

What a waste it's been. All you've managed to do is show what an ass you are, make up a few contrived and canned opinions, and write some ridiculous poems.

We've become your mistress, Kim. You probably show us more attention than you do your wife.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214946 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Err...
...men don't have hymens. Just an FYI.
Funny...
...many straight marriages are "sterile". Are they then not married??
"Duplicate gendered"??? LOL!!! As long as there are 2 consenting adults in the marriage it's complete. How and when they find intimacy is no more your business than if you were to beat on the door of your 80 something year old neighbors and inquire if they use more than 4 Viagra pills a week.
Children are better off in a loving family than one in which mom and dad think their offspring are nothing more than moving piņatas. These kids can identify with nurturing,love and caring, all qualities gay parents can possess as equally as straight parents.
Hey - it's your opinion gays cannot form marriages.
We get it. Stupid opinion but you own it.
ss couples are ONLY EVER barren. Marriage is RARELY sterile. See the difference?

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. A male and female.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Making ss marriage an oxymoron. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Why are you ashamed of what goes on in your bedroom?

Every single social science study indicates that children are FAR better off with their natural parents. The way nature designed. And guess what? Most parents and kids prefer that.

The bottom line? Ss couples do not equate to marriage at any level.

Oh, except, if you dumb it down like you did, to 'two' people.

That makes a hell of a lot of marriages...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214947 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's revisit this ignorant attempt at sounding intelligent from you.
We can utilize eloquent language in an attempt to look elegant as well sister;
Same sex marriages bring forth the basic fundamentalism which the sanctity and union of marriage acknowledges as it's crux and base in that gay unions also hold the integral elements of mutual attraction, intimacy and the willingness to commit to a legally binding agreement formatted on a two party grouping of adults which in no way is dependent on procreation given that individual facet is not a requirement towards the obtainment of a recognized joining of the dual parties involved.
--DAMN!!!
Now isn't it easier to state there is no requirement to produce little kiddies when we think about who can get hitched?
You so stooped.
LOL!!!!
Social scientists assert that were it not for children, marriage would not exist. Couples who fall in love often 'fall' out of love.

So, at it's most basic essence and 'crux', children unite a couple. In fact, that was the only reason government became invested in marriage in the first place.

However, Ss couples will STILL only ever be a mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#214948 Sep 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If the founding fathers believed that a judiciary wasn't necessary to make sure that various organizations needed to be kept in check from a constitutional standpoint, then they wouldn't have created that branch.
As free Americans we have ever right and responsibility to take an action to the courts for a decision. We weren't the first country to create this kind of system.
"Majority rules" didn't fly during the civil rights era and it's not flying now. The bottom line is that sections of DOMA didn't pass Constitutional muster. And that's why those sections were overturned.
Now it's your turn to cry.
And by the way, my math skills are OK. I don't have to be a genius to figure out basic percentages. If you have different numbers, then I'd be happy to look at them.
The objection is that five individuals, in eccense over turned not only the votes, twice, of millions of Californians, but created a new definition of a significant social institution.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214949 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Social scientists assert that were it not for children, marriage would not exist. Couples who fall in love often 'fall' out of love.
So, at it's most basic essence and 'crux', children unite a couple. In fact, that was the only reason government became invested in marriage in the first place.
However, Ss couples will STILL only ever be a mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Smirk.
which social scientists assert that? please cite the papers and the author.

why is it you think you can continue to just pull bullshit out of your ass and no=one will call you on it? you've been busted on it, what, three times in the last week?!?

what a tool!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214950 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which social scientists assert that? please cite the papers and the author.
why is it you think you can continue to just pull bullshit out of your ass and no=one will call you on it? you've been busted on it, what, three times in the last week?!?
what a tool!
You've busted me on nothing. I just schooled you about how long marriage has been around.

Look it up and prove me wrong if you can.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214951 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet i clearly showed yo it is in no way the only way that gays can 'portray the intimacy of marriage'.
your prejudice is preventing you from seeing the facts in front of your face...
The most intimate expression of oneness is the union of a male and female through intercourse.

The closest a gay couple can come to matching that union sexually ends up being inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is an abuse of design.

You should be embarrassed, if not arrested for what you showed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#214952 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which social scientists assert that? please cite the papers and the author.
Cultural anthropology 101 or sociology 1. The first week.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#214953 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which social scientists assert that? please cite the papers and the author....bla bla bla ...angry heterophobic rant...bla bla...

what a tool!
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%2...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214954 Sep 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've said repeatedly recently, if anal sex were the harmful and demeaning act that you portray it to be, then our country would grind to a halt. Anyone who has ever engaged in it would be too ill and too emotionally spiritless to participate in society.
But that isn't the case.
There are risks involved with anal sex. But these risks can easily be eliminated if the proper care is taken.
Besides, as has also been pointed out to you multiple times, not all gay people participate in anal sex. If you let your imagination run free for just a few seconds, I'm sure you can figure out that there are many other ways to be intimate with someone.
This is especially true for lesbians.
No one is trying to copy the kind of intercourse that heterosexuals engage in. That's a ridiculous insinuation. Gay men know what they like and that's what they do.
And "In the End" it all boils down to one simple fact, Kim... It's none of your business.
I think that's what bites at you the most.
The fact that you don't get to tell others what they must do in order to live in your own notion of an ideal world just pisses you off to no end. Your desire to dominate creation is your Achilles heel. It gnaws at you so much that you have spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours reading and preparing comments to post on these TOPIX forums.
What a waste it's been. All you've managed to do is show what an ass you are, make up a few contrived and canned opinions, and write some ridiculous poems.
We've become your mistress, Kim. You probably show us more attention than you do your wife.
On what basis would society in the end end because anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning? Another poster proved that wrong already. At the most society would waddle, not come to the end.

You are like a worm on hot cement. You twist and turn and twirl, trying to slim out of the corners your denial puts you. I'm not here to support your lies. I'm here to protect marriage and children.

You are getting your ass kicked from every side VV.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214955 Sep 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The objection is that five individuals, in eccense over turned not only the votes, twice, of millions of Californians, but created a new definition of a significant social institution.
they turned over the votes that were unconstitutional, as is their job.

no, that definition was already there, they just stopped all those californians from breaking their own constitution...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214956 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Thanks Frankie!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214957 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You've busted me on nothing. I just schooled you about how long marriage has been around.
Look it up and prove me wrong if you can.
how long marriage has been around wasn't even the topic of your post, fool...

yes, i busted you on your bullshit about societies that collapse because of dwindling marriage rates, and now this,...one other i forget about right now, not that it matters. you are proven to just pull obvious bullshit out of your ass and pretend it s fact.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214958 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
oh wow1 totally biased report for a totally biased foundation...

so not even one social scientist to cite from? not even one?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#214959 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe you. You are lying. You don't really support a man marrying his adult daughter. Or Mormon Joe marrying three hot 18 year old brides. Do you now Tick? Convince me. I think you are lying to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
Get on it! Hup Hup! I want to hear your enthusiastic support. No lukewarm nonsense.
another clear example of your hypocrisy, francis. i already answered this question honestly. now when i ask you to prove your stance by saying you think same sex couple marriage is equal to opposite couple marriage you run away and claim you don't have to prove anything..

you are the perfect hypocrite and you keep proving it day after day.

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
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Jun 30 ChaCha 17
drugs Jun 28 jacobjarrard76 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Jun 28 jacobjarrard76 12
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Jun 19 Dalton 1,538
legit pain P.I.L.L.S n m/ar.iju/an.a Jun 16 Monterey delivery 1
Migraine help Jun 13 Jaybarn 1
public officials violating federal laws Jun 5 Time for accounta... 4
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages