Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
160,461 - 160,480 of 200,552 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Dorn

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183813
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Brian_G wrote:
Another fair-weather friend:
The question of marriage is one that historically has been left to the states....
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal...
Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_benhrc.pdf
I applaud Hillary for realizing that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and be accepted into a society that has been very unfair and brutal to themm. I used to believe that civil unions were the answer, but homosexuals want to be married in order to escape redicule and not be treated as second class citizens.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183814
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
No one is bound by your religion or traditions other than the people that choose your region or traditions, they are NOT the law of the land, this is the land of the free, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, orientation or national origin.

It isn’t a characterization, the polls show clearly who is opposed and it is mostly upon religious grounds.

Marriage remains marriage, a commitment by a couple to one another, to pledge their lives, their love and fortunes together, to be partners in this life.

That is certainly what my marriage is about, my wife is my partner, not my property, she means much more to me than merely a child bearing appliance.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183815
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon XBox, use your head for something other than a hat rack. Remove the sexual procreative aspect of the marital relationship, and what else is there to generate a compelling state interest? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying? Its because they might have sex, and make a baby, named Xavier Breath....just kidding.
<quoted text>
That reason was made long before you, or I were born. Do you think its a fluke that SSM never, other than a few scattered historical examples, existed before in the West, or around the globe for that matter?
<quoted text>
Scientifically proven on untold numerous studies conducted on husbands AND wives. There's not sufficient numbers or studies to conclusively prove such studies are applicable to SSM, male or female. If a study shows that married men live longer because of their wife, would that study be applicable to a female SSC? Male SSC? What about plural marriage? If what you are saying is true, there's no reason not to allow that. It would benefit plural marriage practioners too.
You are incorrigible. How many fucking times do we have to go over these points before it sinks into your head? There are other State interests in marriage than just procreation. Longer life, better health, stability, financial independence.... Argue against it all you like.... it's about the same as a creationist arguing that evolution isn't scientific.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183816
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183817
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Yeah that had me laughing too, tradition is all they have to stand on, but tradition is a choice, not a law.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183818
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.
That is true, just as being able to bear a child is not a requirement. Soon another barrier will fall across all 50 states, so far it is only fallen in 11 with one district, California soon to regain its rights and freedoms as well.

From the government standpoint all marriages are a legal contract between 2 people, nothing more. Some states limit it further, others do not.

Your personal church can still have its ceremony " Do you take this women to be your child bearing appliance" or whatever words you use.

Fortunately we don’t all have to belong to your church, we live in the land of the free.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183820
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I applaud Hillary for realizing that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and be accepted into a society that has been very unfair and brutal to themm. I used to believe that civil unions were the answer, but homosexuals want to be married in order to escape redicule and not be treated as second class citizens.
If homosexuals wish to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband wife, at least in 32 states, that is what they should do.

Seriously, "second class citizens"? So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183821
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuals wish to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband wife, at least in 32 states, that is what they should do.
Seriously, "second class citizens"? So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?
Or they can marry in the 10 states and one district ( more to follow ) that has entered the 21st century, or the 17 nations that also recognize them ( and more to follow ), California is on the verge of regaining its rights and freedoms.

In the next couple of months Prop 8 will be struck down quickly followed by DOMA

The wording that is now expected will may almost any challenge to the states that have altered their constitution against equality to swiftly succeed in overturning it.

Not a sure thing yet, but the writing is on the wall, 58% of Americans now support gay marriage, the white house advocate general has been allotted time in the arguments, and the republican leadership is swiftly jumping on the bandwagon.

One would have to be blind to not see where this is going.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183822
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is bound by your religion or traditions other than the people that choose your region or traditions, they are NOT the law of the land, this is the land of the free, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, orientation or national origin.
Let me guess, the "D" is the letter grade you received in school for reading comprehension. The author of that piece, a gay man, stated he avoided using tradition and religion in forming his stance on same sex marriage.
It isn’t a characterization, the polls show clearly who is opposed and it is mostly upon religious grounds.
Not all who oppose legalizing SSM do so on religious grounds.
Marriage remains marriage, a commitment by a couple to one another, to pledge their lives, their love and fortunes together, to be partners in this life.
Sounds like you're trying to define marriage for everyone else. Marriage remains a legally recognized union of husband and wife. At least in 32 U.S. states, and most societies around the globe. All there other items you mentioned, ARE NOT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

Also, polygamy is a valid form of marriage practiced in far more place than SSM, even in this country, albeit without legal recognition. Amazing how you omit that.
That is certainly what my marriage is about, my wife is my partner, not my property, she means much more to me than merely a child bearing appliance.
What your marriage is beyond a legally recognized union of husband and wife, is up to YOU AND YOUR wife. The law does not care if you call her your partner, mother of your children,, honey pie, or shnookems.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183823
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Or they can marry in the 10 states and one district ( more to follow ) that has entered the 21st century, or the 17 nations that also recognize them ( and more to follow ), California is on the verge of regaining its rights and freedoms.
"Freedom"? So submitting one's personal intimate relationship to government regulation is freedom?

By the way, so when will "freedom" be extended to consensual plural marriages?
In the next couple of months Prop 8 will be struck down quickly followed by DOMA
The wording that is now expected will may almost any challenge to the states that have altered their constitution against equality to swiftly succeed in overturning it.
Those states with constitutional amendments,simply recognized men and women are different, each is one half of the marital relationship. They felt no need to turn a man into a woman, or vice versa.
Not a sure thing yet, but the writing is on the wall, 58% of Americans now support gay marriage, the white house advocate general has been allotted time in the arguments, and the republican leadership is swiftly jumping on the bandwagon.
Yet we still have 32 plus states where the voters have said otherwise. Time will tell.
One would have to be blind to not see where this is going.
It's "going" to further devalue marriage, a process that began long before gay marriage came about, it is the reason why it's legal, and Americans as a whole are not marrying at rates they did just thirty years ago. Who knows SSM might become legal nation wide, and it might not. Plural marriage might become legal, thanks in part to legal SSM. The more the merrier.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183824
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess, the "D" is the letter grade you received in school for reading comprehension. The author of that piece, a gay man, stated he avoided using tradition and religion in forming his stance on same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
Not all who oppose legalizing SSM do so on religious grounds.
<quoted text>
Sounds like you're trying to define marriage for everyone else. Marriage remains a legally recognized union of husband and wife. At least in 32 U.S. states, and most societies around the globe. All there other items you mentioned, ARE NOT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
Also, polygamy is a valid form of marriage practiced in far more place than SSM, even in this country, albeit without legal recognition. Amazing how you omit that.
<quoted text>
What your marriage is beyond a legally recognized union of husband and wife, is up to YOU AND YOUR wife. The law does not care if you call her your partner, mother of your children,, honey pie, or shnookems.
You need to learn to read.. is English your primary language? I said a “majority” of the rapidly diminishing number of people that oppose same sex marriage do so for religious reasons, and that remains a fact regardless of your ignorance of the fact.

No I am for letting each individual person the freedom to define their marriage and taking away the tynary of you personally defining it for everyone else.

and to your last point, no I cannot have you arrested for referring to your wife as your child bearing appliance, but I do pity her.

My wife is my very best friend, my partner, the one person I can be open about anything to, never hide anything from. She knows all my hopes and fears and my shortcomings ( my wife teases me that I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the intolerant ) and my strengths. I hope my children have the same kind of marriage I have... so far they have.... we taught them well.

And by the way they all support Same sex marriage along with a majority of Americans, we taught them very well.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183825
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The argument in the country is starting to change, anyone notice.

Now that 11 states and one district recognize SSM, the argument is now, why are same sex couples treated differently in one state than another, isn’t freedom for all Americans?

Perfect :)

That is now what businesses are asking the federal government, they are saying it is a business imperative that they be able to attract and move the best people for the job from state to state regardless of their orientation, that SSM needs to be recognized nationally.
BanOn

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183826
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Where did you get your "BanOn's" ??

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183827
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn to read.. is English your primary language? I said a “majority” of the rapidly diminishing number of people that oppose same sex marriage do so for religious reasons, and that remains a fact regardless of your ignorance of the fact.
My response did not contradict what you wrote, retread it. I do not oppose SSM on religious grounds.
No I am for letting each individual person the freedom to define their marriage and taking away the tynary of you personally defining it for everyone else.
Did you not read what I actually wrote? The state defines marriage. In 32 plush states it is DEFINED AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION OF Husband and Wife. How a couple wishes to define it beyond that. Are you suggesting the state is "tyrannical"?
and to your last point, no I cannot have you arrested for referring to your wife as your child bearing appliance, but I do pity her.
This from a man who thinks his wife is interchangeable with another man.
My wife is my very best friend, my partner, the one person I can be open about anything to, never hide anything from. She knows all my hopes and fears and my shortcomings ( my wife teases me that I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the intolerant ) and my strengths. I hope my children have the same kind of marriage I have... so far they have.... we taught them well.
Part of that teaching, is modeling behavior, sons learn from their fathers how a husband should treat his wife, and daughters learn the same. I have taught my daughters as well, as well. Tolerance does not mean we ignore differences.
And by the way they all support Same sex marriage along with a majority of Americans, we taught them very well.
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
2013 repubCrooks

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183828
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Once again more SCUM BAG republicans are indicted and will face charges, just like the dirt bag calling himself Nick COnway of thesgvCOG stealing seems to be there only job.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183829
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
My response did not contradict what you wrote, retread it. I do not oppose SSM on religious grounds.
<quoted text>
Did you not read what I actually wrote? The state defines marriage. In 32 plush states it is DEFINED AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION OF Husband and Wife. How a couple wishes to define it beyond that. Are you suggesting the state is "tyrannical"?
<quoted text>
This from a man who thinks his wife is interchangeable with another man.
<quoted text>
Part of that teaching, is modeling behavior, sons learn from their fathers how a husband should treat his wife, and daughters learn the same. I have taught my daughters as well, as well. Tolerance does not mean we ignore differences.
<quoted text>
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
So you claim to be in the minority of the larger minority of people that oppose Same Sex marriage, not something to be congratulated for.

There are 11 states that recognize same sex marriages as well, and one district, soon to be followed by California regaining its freedom.

Yes we modeled our behavior, we were open, and accepting of people different from ourselves, we were inclusive of people of different religions, orientations even politics, our modeling that behavior was instilled our children who are also unafraid of and accepting of people different than themselves.

Ignore... no, accept and welcome, yes. They put love before hate, acceptance before fear, and they cherish the American values of Justice, Freedom and Equality
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183831
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
And he is back to the old religion created playbook against SSM! Wooo Hoooo!

Lost on procreation, lost on gay judges, lost on tradition so it is back to the slippery slope argument’s!

ROFLMAO

Those are the most fun

let’s cut to the chase, I want to hear about your desire to marry your goat.:P

we can talk about Plural when there are enough responsible people campaigning for it, when you have enough signatures on a petition to put it on a ballot, but please take video of your getting the signatures, we want that for You Tube
2013 repubCrooks

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183832
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Republicans’ self-analysis: The party of ‘stuffy old men.'
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183833
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not limited to those beliefs held by the founding fathers.
Our freedom of the press is not limited to only ink presses, but has been extended to include the internet.
Freedom expands.
In the history of this country there has been one amendment which sought to curtail freedom. It is also the only amendment we've had to repeal.
Gay marriage is a done deal. Conservatives lost.
Nuggin.

Yes. Your expressed view runs parallel to Christian belief. Those views hold that God created the world perfect, but because man transgressed his law, sin was allowed to creep in. It has been downhill ever since. Can we single out Republicans for imposing their infamous 14th Amendment which overturned the Constitution - thereby allowing tyranny to reign in the land, when the nature of the "anti-White" Republicans only embody the fallen condition of man?

According to the historical record:

" And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," (Revelation 12:7)

"And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." (Revelation 12:8)

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:9)

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)

"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:" (Genesis 3:2)

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Genesis 3:3)

" And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" (Genesis 3:4)

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6)

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Genesis 3:7)

"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Genesis 3:23)

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:" (James 2:8)

"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2:9)

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)

Incidentally, Nuggin. The Defense of marriage Act is an Act of the Congress. It is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Ronald
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183834
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuggin.
Yes. Your expressed view runs parallel to Christian belief. Those views hold that God created the world perfect, but because man transgressed his law, sin was allowed to creep in. It has been downhill ever since. Can we single out Republicans for imposing their infamous 14th Amendment which overturned the Constitution - thereby allowing tyranny to reign in the land, when the nature of the "anti-White" Republicans only embody the fallen condition of man?
According to the historical record:
" And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," (Revelation 12:7)
"And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." (Revelation 12:8)
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:9)
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)
"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:" (Genesis 3:2)
"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Genesis 3:3)
" And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" (Genesis 3:4)
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6)
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Genesis 3:7)
"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Genesis 3:23)
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:" (James 2:8)
"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2:9)
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)
Incidentally, Nuggin. The Defense of marriage Act is an Act of the Congress. It is not an amendment to the Constitution.
Ronald
and those rules apply to those that choose to follow your religion... and no one else.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••