Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,971

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182095 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop making statements you don't mean.
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.

You're grasping at straws.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182096 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you understand about "Marriage is a man and a woman only"?
Does it say "men and women only"?
What don't you understand about: "...does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182097 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>If you are for true equality in marriage, why should 12 year old kids be omitted? It seems that its allowed in other countries that allow polygamy.
http://www.google.com/url...
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.

You're grasping at straws.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182098 Mar 1, 2013
When SCOTUS puts this heinous proposition to rest, I hope that lawsuits will be initiated against NOM and Protect Marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182099 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.
You're grasping at straws.
Don't blame me for your inability to clearly express your stupid opinions. You never take responsibility for anything, do ya?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182100 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us why you think Prop 8 has anything to do with polygamy, when the California Supreme Court says it does not.
Prop 8 says "a man and a woman" only. The CA court wanted to make damn sure repealing it didn't in any way legalize polygamy. And polygamy wasn't the reason for repealing it, same sex marriage was.

This proves my case, that prop 8 excluded polygamists too, or else why would the court even mention it, Miss Thing?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182101 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
When SCOTUS puts this heinous proposition to rest, I hope that lawsuits will be initiated against NOM and Protect Marriage.
That's because you are angry, mean and vindictive.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182102 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't blame me for your inability to clearly express your stupid opinions. You never take responsibility for anything, do ya?
Look back. I often specify adults.

You're grasping at straws.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182103 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't blame me for your inability to clearly express your stupid opinions. You never take responsibility for anything, do ya?
My opinions are not stupid.

You believe same sex marriage should be allowed. I believe same sex marriage and poly marriage should be allowed.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182104 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I often specify adults. I figured by now it was understood. So sue me.
You're grasping at straws.
Lets support TRUE marriage equality, Frank. Other countries that support polygamy allow teenagers to be married. So Frank why don't you support 12,13,14 year old kids being married???? Come on Frank In Saudi Arabia, polygamy is legal, and no age restrictions. What could possibly be of harm to society???
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182105 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 says "a man and a woman" only. The CA court wanted to make damn sure repealing it didn't in any way legalize polygamy. And polygamy wasn't the reason for repealing it, same sex marriage was.
This proves my case, that prop 8 excluded polygamists too, or else why would the court even mention it, Miss Thing?
Look, dumbass, the Court mentioned it when they granted marriage to gay couples, not about Prop 8. Jesus tap-dancing Christ! You have THE WORST reading comprehension of any Topix poster. I can't believe anyone is this sloppy and stupid.

"We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships."

CAN YOU READ??? Let me condense it for you:

...our conclusion.. DOES NOT MEAN.. constitutional right to polygamous relationships.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182106 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinions are not stupid.
Ok.... how about this: Your opinions are not based in fact or reality.
not really too

Madison, WI

#182107 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Look back. I often specify adults.
You're grasping at straws.
I want 8 wives, all under the age of 15. Why are you trying to diminish my marriage rights?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182108 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Lets support TRUE marriage equality, Frank. Other countries that support polygamy allow teenagers to be married. So Frank why don't you support 12,13,14 year old kids being married???? Come on Frank In Saudi Arabia, polygamy is legal, and no age restrictions. What could possibly be of harm to society???
Those countries consider sex appropriate for those age children, we do not. Are you now going to claim sex is irrelevant in marriage?

12 year old girls getting pregnant is not healthy or wise.

We are not talking about Saudi Arabia, we are talking about California.

If you want to discuss 12 year olds having sex, go to your favorite kiddie porn site. Hope you get caught, pervert.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182109 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.... how about this: Your opinions are not based in fact or reality.
Prop 8 mentioning polygamy (a man and a woman) and the CA Supreme court mentioning polygamy in it's decision is fact and reality.

Your denial is not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182110 Mar 1, 2013
not really too wrote:
<quoted text>I want 8 wives, all under the age of 15. Why are you trying to diminish my marriage rights?
Because the children are too young to have children. And too irresponsible.

You're grasping at straws.

I often specify adults for just this reason. Jackasses like you. There's a class action suit against me for neglecting to specify it this time, Get in on it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182111 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Look, dumbass,....
CAN YOU READ??? Let me condense it for you:
...our conclusion.. DOES NOT MEAN.. constitutional right to polygamous relationships.
Right, they wanted to eliminate the gender part of prop 8 but keep the number part. They wanted to make damn sure repealing it didn't possibly legalize poly or make it easier to legalize poly.

Proves my point. Prop 8 mentions polygamy, The courts decision mentions polygamy.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182112 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Those countries consider sex appropriate for those age children, we do not. Are you now going to claim sex is irrelevant in marriage?
12 year old girls getting pregnant is not healthy or wise.
We are not talking about Saudi Arabia, we are talking about California.
If you want to discuss 12 year olds having sex, go to your favorite kiddie porn site. Hope you get caught, pervert.
OH I see you only want polygamy legal in California. You want to talk about marriage equality don't you?

In June 2005, Jeffs was charged with sexual assault on a minor and with conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly arranging, in April 2001, a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old first cousin, Allen. The girl, Elissa Wall (then only known as "Jane Doe IV") testified that she begged "Uncle Rulon" to let her wait until she was older, or choose another man for her. Rulon Jeffs was apparently "sympathetic", but Warren Jeffs was not, and she was forced to go through with the marriage. The 14-year-old alleged that her new husband raped her repeatedly and that she repeatedly miscarried

It looks like age was not a problem in this polygamous marriage.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182113 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the children are too young to have children. And too irresponsible.
You're grasping at straws.
I often specify adults for just this reason. Jackasses like you. There's a class action suit against me for neglecting to specify it this time, Get in on it!
Come on Frank, having children is not a requirement in marriage. Why are you grasping at straws??
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182115 Mar 1, 2013
People he is either too stupid to understand, or too stubborn to admit how obviously wrong he is no matter how many point it out in how many different ways

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
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 2,272
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 13 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 18 hr Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Wed Blazing saddles 7,954
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Sep 16 🙈🙈 99
michael walker? Sep 15 meh 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Sep 9 KeS 16
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••