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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#180947 Feb 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they all say, poly isn't marriage equality because the judge didn't mention it.
But striking down prop 8, which mandates that marriage is between one man and a one woman, also strikes down that pesky "one" thing along with that pesky "man woman" thing. Glad it makes you mad, hypocrite! But you can't have one without the other and have equality.
Marriage equality is for everyone, not just people you approve of.
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will reamin illegal after Prop 8. Striking down Prop 8 will NOT strike down bigamy laws. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with polygamy. This thread is not about polygamy. The article in question is not about polygamy, nor does it mention polygamy. None of the judges made any ruling concerning polygamy.... they did NOT strike down that "pesky one thing."
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#180948 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.
The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.
Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.
Smile.
So now two is half of two, eh? I figured out you are "unstable" but now I know you're off-the-deep-end nuts.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180949 Feb 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject is Prop 8, not marriage equality. You fail at reading comprehension....AGAIN.
Yes. Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman. That's not fair. Not fair to homosexuals and EQUALLY unfair to polyamorists.

Striking down prop 8 strikes down the "a" part of "a" man and "a" woman as well as the "man" "woman" part.

So you see, it is very on topic. The only reason you try to spin that it's not is because you are a hypocrite. And it righfully makes you uncomfortable. That's on you Miss Thing, not me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180950 Feb 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will reamin illegal after Prop 8. Striking down Prop 8 will NOT strike down bigamy laws. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with polygamy. This thread is not about polygamy. The article in question is not about polygamy, nor does it mention polygamy. None of the judges made any ruling concerning polygamy.... they did NOT strike down that "pesky one thing."
Yes. Polygamy will still be illegal, but it will have one more restriction removed, prop 8.

Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman. That's not fair. Not fair to homosexuals and EQUALLY unfair to polyamorists.

Striking down prop 8 strikes down the "a" part of "a" man and "a" woman as well as the "man" "woman" part.

So you see, it is very on topic. The only reason you try to spin that it's not is because you are a hypocrite. And it righfully makes you uncomfortable. That's on you Miss Thing, not me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180951 Feb 23, 2013

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#180952 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.
The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.
Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.
Smile.
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So now two is half of two, eh? I figured out you are "unstable" but now I know you're off-the-deep-end nuts.
I accurately correct an attempt to divert from gender equality, and you turn around and do the same thing right off the bat (pun intended).

Here, let me school you;

We were not talking about numbers, we were talking about genders (See the very first sentence I posted for context). A gay couple represents half the available genders. A heterosexual couple is as diverse as gender possible. Both have two people, but one has only half the genders.

If I am unstable, what does that make you?

I have a letter certifying my sanity, this is a clear indication you need to pursue one. I can help you some more if you'd like.

Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180953 Feb 23, 2013
If anyone sees "Xavier Breath" stick a fork in him. I think he's done.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#180954 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

I have a letter certifying my sanity, this is a clear indication you need to pursue one. I can help you some more if you'd like.
Smile.
You claim to have 3, and you also claimed to lie to friends in order to obtain them.

Why are you so boastful about this?

Inner lesbian remembers things.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180955 Feb 23, 2013
Marriage. There is no one right way.
PooMobila

Covina, CA

#180956 Feb 23, 2013
Look another paving job over the "out of towners" stupid postings.

It's reported that the pope commissioned a two-volume, 300-page document that ended up exposing a network of gay bishops within the Vatican.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#180957 Feb 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180958 Feb 23, 2013
PooMobila wrote:
Look another paving job over the "out of towners" stupid postings.
It's reported that the pope commissioned a two-volume, 300-page document that ended up exposing a network of gay bishops within the Vatican.
Some Big Cardinal muckety muck who will be among those choosing a new pope said it's time the church came in to the 21st century (Having skipped the twentieth!) and letting priests marry. He thinks it will make them less randy, but it won't. Ask any married man!
Walking

Covina, CA

#180959 Feb 23, 2013
The pile of Dungs are adding up, Communist China, Russia and now.

Iranís (blowHards) powerful or is that less? Revolutionary Guard says it has captured a foreign unmanned aircraft during a military exercise in southern Iran.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#180960 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would Diana Ross rule on that?:)
My thoughts exactly!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#180961 Feb 23, 2013
GOP idiots wrote:
Whats even more shameful is the facts this lousy piece of DUNG and his party of idiots will be shutting down the government and the VA because they are just plain stupid.
They have and are ruining this country.
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) is a pathtic piece of DUNG and he can't learn to shut his stinking mouth.
Boehner also says the compensation claims backlog remains alarmingly high nationally and in Ohio. He says system failures reported by Ohio veterans are shameful, like his filthy mouth shameful.
As a registered democrat I have to say it ain't just the GOP. Last count there are 535 over paid uncooperative whiny ignorant self absorbed loud mouthed spoiled little rich brats in Congress.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#180962 Feb 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you love diversity and hate segregation; keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you're stupid and you know it post again!
If you're stupid and wanna show it post again!
If you're stupid we should know it, post again!
If you're stupid, wanna show it, just hit send!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#180963 Feb 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Polygamy will still be illegal, but it will have one more restriction removed, prop 8.
Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman. That's not fair. Not fair to homosexuals and EQUALLY unfair to polyamorists.
Striking down prop 8 strikes down the "a" part of "a" man and "a" woman as well as the "man" "woman" part.
So you see, it is very on topic. The only reason you try to spin that it's not is because you are a hypocrite. And it righfully makes you uncomfortable. That's on you Miss Thing, not me.
Look, dummy. Prop 8 does NOT strike down the "a" thing. It was in effect BEFORE Prop 8 and it will continue to be in effect AFTER Prop 8. The "a" thing was NOT struck down.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#180964 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.
The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.
Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I accurately correct an attempt to divert from gender equality, and you turn around and do the same thing right off the bat (pun intended).
Here, let me school you;
We were not talking about numbers, we were talking about genders (See the very first sentence I posted for context). A gay couple represents half the available genders. A heterosexual couple is as diverse as gender possible. Both have two people, but one has only half the genders.
If I am unstable, what does that make you?
I have a letter certifying my sanity, this is a clear indication you need to pursue one. I can help you some more if you'd like.
Smile.
...yawn...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#180965 Feb 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If anyone sees "Xavier Breath" stick a fork in him. I think he's done.
It's no secret that what you think has little value, but why in the world would you say that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#180966 Feb 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, dummy. Prop 8 does NOT strike down the "a" thing. It was in effect BEFORE Prop 8 and it will continue to be in effect AFTER Prop 8. The "a" thing was NOT struck down.
You have to do a little thinking here dummy, but it will be worth it. If Prop 8 stood as law of the land it will be even harder to make poly legal. The federal law would be gone but prop 8 would still be saying "a man and a woman!"

Not only will polyamorists have to strike down the federal law, but Prop 8 as well. But that won't happen, you're doing a fine job of getting rid of it for them! Even if that is not your intention, I'm sure they appreciate it. By the way most polyamorists support same sex marriage, why do you alienate them? Let me answer. Because you're an ignorant hypocrite!

Do you understand now, Miss Thing?

Marriage. There is no one right way.

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Any Milfs In The Modesto-Merced Area? (May '13) Jun 30 My son loves milfs 10
News $1.8 million mosque rising at Islamic Center in... (Feb '14) Jun 21 The_MO_Profiteer 46
Review: Redemption Hill Church Jun 17 shockandawe 1
News East Bay water district will sue to fight state... Jun 16 Tammy 1
Review: Botanica Curandero Jun 15 Lucila 2
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) Jun 13 Mexican 14
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Jun 10 freedomfighter76 124
More from around the web

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Oakdale Mortgages