Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#199603 Jul 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Juvenile rambling.
No, what's tyrannical is that you've been made a Protected Species with "hate crimes" legislation and "Diversity" sewage where you live in fear of your job if you don't celebrate the sphincter dwellers. Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.
Ask ABC employees about their job security, that if their news stories didn't include interviews with people on an approved Diversity list then it would reflect on their next Evaluation.
Look at the "Diversity" guidelines put out by the pinko SPJ less than a month after the attacks of September the 11th of 2001.
Diversity is dangerous. But you're obviously one of the Lowest Common Denominator, so all this just when in your ear and out your brain crack.
Talk about rambling.....That was total crap that made no sense. Whew

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199604 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already completed one of your little post finding exercises showing you many posts of mine you said didn't exist. You didn't respond.
I never asked you about posts of yours that didn't exist. You simply presented them as an excuse. It was lame, like your posts.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mentor Jizzy (zoro) or whatever his latest sock is called has argued polygamy shouldn't be allowed because religious people practice it. That's one example.
Actually his argument was that it is practiced under the guise of religious expression. And the federal government doesn't govern based on religion. That's quite different than what you said.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You yourself have argued against polygamy saying it shouldn't be allowed because "it's not marriage, it's more than one marriage". Or some such silly bigoted horsesh!t.
Ahhhh, there we go! I love it when you expose yourself as the lying sack of shyt that you are!!! I NEVER, EVER, ONCE argued against polygamy. NOT ONCE. I have never stated my opinion on the matter one way or another.

What I have said is that a discussion on people being able to have multiple marriages has nothing to do with this string. Just as many other people have stated. That is NOT arguing against it like you keep pretending.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo argues polygamy "is not an equal rights issue. It's just not."
Need I go on?
Hope that helps.
Stating that polygamy is not an equal rights issue, is not arguing against it. It is simply stating a matter of fact.

Go peddle your self created polygamy persecution somewhere else.
1 does not equal 2. Non discussion does not equal expressing an opinion.

But then, you got nothing else, so we are all sure your tired, lame schtick will continue. pathetic really.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199605 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting marriage for people you like, Ridiculing it for people you hate.
Where did this ridiculing occur you lying sack of shyt?

Post number please.

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199606 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The straight man in me is married.
The lesbian can't be married within her orientation.
However, she doesn't want to try and be stuck with Hillary or Janet.
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
If my math is right, since you are half lesbian, that would make your relationship a duplicate quarter portion of a marriage.

In your eyes, you wouldn't be eligible for marriage because you are half-lesbian. Your half-female genetic structure would invalidate your marriage--even if your half-male genetic portion is capable of breeding.

Perhaps I'll notify legal authorities and let them know that you are involved in an illegal marriage; that you have benefited from the rights and protections of heterosexual marriage, even though you are not technically a full heterosexual.

What's good for the goose is good for the half-gander.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199607 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
Is this very post not really an argument against polygamy? Your anger about it's mere mention speaks volumes. Your attempts to censor it speaks volumes.

Sure, sure, we know. You're not angry and you don't attempt to censor me.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#199608 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
That Frankie can't count? I quite agree.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199609 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Whats with the pitty card? I don't see you posting against KMare, Pietro or any of the others who shout down Same Same Marriage, or the pure hate shown towards LBGT people. Whats with that? How many face's do you have?
One can oppose redefining marriage without expressing "...pure hate shown towards LBGT people".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199611 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Again you have missed the boat skipper. One of the main objections to same sex marriage was that goes against a Biblical Marriage. Now if that lone objection was shot down, because we as a nation are in fact secular, and we don't change nor make laws based on religion. Why should we as a nation then allow ploygamy based on religion? I never said fundie now did I( with in the context of polygamy)? Certian sects of the LDS church ( FLDS), Islam and Buddhism seem to be the only ones looking for the abolishment of Polygamy laws. Again we don't change or base laws on religion. Never have and never will.
How about its simply its not good as a matter of public policy? That we as a society,if we're going to license marriage, should not be trying to undermine it. First "no fault " divorce, great idea at the time, not so great anymore. Now we have another "great idea", marriage is not solely about husband AND wife, now it's "spouses for life". What's next?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199612 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife.
That's your definition. Not the states. Sorry, their definition trumps yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it! Explain how does it remain he same "union", "institution", and/or "ceremony", when, in your case the wife is removed, and replaced with another man?
I removed no one. There was never a wife you moron. No replacement exists.

Seriously, you are one f*cked up moron.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or point out the obvious. "Straight", or "gay", aren't you forgetting the "mixed orientation" marriages? If, for example, a bisexual woman married a straight man, their marriage would be of mixed orientation. Let's not leave anybody out.
<quoted text>
That's it, don't hold back on showing off how stupid you are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there is, two men/women, it's an SSM.
Nope, it's still just marriage dearie. There are no legal documents in any state either for or against marriage equality that mention "same sex marriage" because no such entity exists. All legal documentation, all marriage applications, and all state and federal privileges related to this issue only specify marriage, because that is the only institution in play here. Your SSM is nothing more than a talking point. Using it to substantiate your "argument" merely demonstrates what an idiot you are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Three actually. The original one of husband and wife, and two others, one gay male, one lesbian female, each with its own characteristics, customs, tradtions, etc, to the extent that enough time has passed to allow for those to form for SSM.
<quoted text>
Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, they don't
<quoted text>
Why would gay people marry people of the opposite sex? Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh dearie, I'm just pointing out the obvious, which I know you are capable of observing, and have in previous posts. It's only propaganda among the more zealous GLiBTee rainbow flag wavers, to claim that everything is the same, or "equal" expressed in Orwellian terms.
Ranting like an idiot doesn't really help you hon.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199613 Jul 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If my math is right, since you are half lesbian, that would make your relationship a duplicate quarter portion of a marriage.
In your eyes, you wouldn't be eligible for marriage because you are half-lesbian. Your half-female genetic structure would invalidate your marriage--even if your half-male genetic portion is capable of breeding.
Perhaps I'll notify legal authorities and let them know that you are involved in an illegal marriage; that you have benefited from the rights and protections of heterosexual marriage, even though you are not technically a full heterosexual.
What's good for the goose is good for the half-gander.
Or maybe a "male lesbian"! Lesbians can be male or female. Another progressive move, and no need to add another letter in the marquee.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199614 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Whats with the pitty card? I don't see you posting against KMare, Pietro or any of the others who shout down Same Same Marriage, or the pure hate shown towards LBGT people. Whats with that? How many face's do you have?
One. How about yourself? Marriage for atheists but not for fundies. That's two faces right there, Jizzy.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199615 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from the King of Stupid, that's quite the compliment.
<quoted text>
Reading skills off are they? I didn't mention "sexual orientation" at all.
<quoted text>
A WHOLE decade?! Really, that long? Gee so in the history of the republic, SSM is a decade old.
<quoted text>
Oh so you are the wife after all. You devil you.:). Or is it just more GLiBTee propaganda talking points?
<quoted text>
Or when you claim SSM doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
Yes, McFly, one gender is being excluded. You better check your spouse's anatomy again.
<quoted text>
Nooooooooo Mc Fly, simply the state is sanctioning GENDER SEGREGATION in marriage, nothing was implied beyond that.
<quoted text>
Man oh man, you've been hitting the spike rainbow punch hard. When a man, asks a woman to marry him, he is asking her to be his lawfully wedded wife. The state sanctions a monogamous union of husband and wife. See both sexes included.
<quoted text>
Thank you, your highness, the King of Stupidia, the stupidest king in all the land.
<quoted text>
Interracial marriage bans were intended to maintain white supremacy, and prevent "mice gentamicin of the white race".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
<quoted text>
So you will use laws against racial segregation in marriage to argue for gender segregation in marriage? An interracial opposite sex couple can, and have, accepted each other as HUSBAND AND WIFE. Their ethnicity doesn't affect that at all. They're a legally recognized union of husband and wife. There's the difference.
For a person who claims they're "gay", you're not happy. Plus you have potty mouth. Very bad Joh-née......very bad.
Your stupidity has come to a new high today. thank you for demonstrating that you are no long worth the energy to respond. You are truly one of the stupidest posters I've encountered on Topix. I almost have to rank you equal to Brian_G. So sad.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199616 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Worship any god you wish. But do not expect that we change any laws to suit your god or religion. That is what I tell ya boi
I am agnostic.

And we don't keep laws against polygamy to suit your hate of religious people either.

"boi"? Are suggesting I am wrong because I am gay? "Even if that were true it would be a non-issue."- Rose_NoHope.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199617 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupidity has come to a new high today. thank you for demonstrating that you are no long worth the energy to respond. You are truly one of the stupidest posters I've encountered on Topix. I almost have to rank you equal to Brian_G. So sad.
Oh, you're so silly! I bet you'll continue to respond.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199618 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
Your claim is laughable.
I see your words, but for some reason all I can hear in my head is "WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH HHHHHHHHHHH!!!"

There's no such thing as an epi-genetic mistake.
Homosexuality is not a disorder.
Gay sex is natural.
Gay couples can adopt children and create families.

I did find one thing absolutely is hysterical... "...the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society."

Really? The most distinct, unique, and critical?

Do you really think anybody believes that boo-shit? Divorce costs Americans $175,000,000,000 annually ( http://www.divorcereform.org/soc.html ).

How distinct! How critical! How unique!

HAH!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199619 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your definition. Not the states. Sorry, their definition trumps yours.
<quoted text>
I removed no one. There was never a wife you moron. No replacement exists.
Seriously, you are one f*cked up moron.
<quoted text>
That's it, don't hold back on showing off how stupid you are.
<quoted text>
Nope, it's still just marriage dearie. There are no legal documents in any state either for or against marriage equality that mention "same sex marriage" because no such entity exists. All legal documentation, all marriage applications, and all state and federal privileges related to this issue only specify marriage, because that is the only institution in play here. Your SSM is nothing more than a talking point. Using it to substantiate your "argument" merely demonstrates what an idiot you are.
<quoted text>
Damn you are stupid.
<quoted text>
Why would gay people marry people of the opposite sex? Damn you are stupid.
<quoted text>
Ranting like an idiot doesn't really help you hon.
"Ranting like an idiot doesn't really help you hon." Jonah1 said, ranting like an idiot.

Priceless!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199620 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe a "male lesbian"! Lesbians can be male or female. Another progressive move, and no need to add another letter in the marquee.
He could only be a "male lesbian" if he has his penis and testicles removed to become a woman, genitally, while remaining a genetic male.

He hasn't done that. So, he's half-lesbian.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199621 Jul 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That Frankie can't count? I quite agree.
Great argument against marriage equality you got there son. "Frankie can't count". Tell the judge.
Great Smate

Covina, CA

#199622 Jul 2, 2013
And still NO end insight for idiot poster's..?

Get lost sand take a grunt and clear out your brain frank rrroooosssiii.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199623 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupidity has come to a new high today. thank you for demonstrating that you are no long worth the energy to respond. You are truly one of the stupidest posters I've encountered on Topix. I almost have to rank you equal to Brian_G. So sad.
Pure ad hominem.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
does Marysville requires sidewalk built prior t... May 15 quan 1
News Governor Brown Issues Emergency Declaration For... Apr '17 Fucisil 8
News Loud crowd disagreed with most of LaMalfaa s po... Apr '17 Was Not Coherent 1
News Vallejo gas prices hit highs not seen in five y... Apr '17 tps 7
News Search teams look for at-risk Berry Creek man (Oct '16) Apr '17 Rick 4
News Dropkick Murphys and Rancid set for July concer... Mar '17 West Coast Alert 1
Family Court Corruption (May '12) Mar '17 HollyHaller 5

Oroville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oroville Mortgages