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
148,661 - 148,680 of 200,360 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Dan

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169693
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can dance ad parse words, but the fact is, you don't have any problem brushing off any other form of marriage currently not allowed by the government as a non-issue or red herring- aside from same sex marriage. There in lies your inner bigot no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Have you read my posts dumbass?

Have you read my responses to your sad inclusion of polygamy?

Go back and read them shitforbrains. There is no mention of any bigotry from me you complete moron.

Like I repeatedly stated but you being a dumbfuck failed to read - I could give a shit less if the incredibly few poloygamists want to pursue their format of marriage as long as it did not include underage brides, coercion or hiding spouses from each other.

Get lost punk...you're such a lost soul it's pathetic.

By the way....this thread is about gay marriage...not men having sex with cars, necrophelia, beastiality or those who wonder who in the HELL your sad ass could possibly bed down with at night.

LOL!!!

Geeezus already.
WWBD

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169694
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Testing

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169695
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read my posts dumbass?
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts. You are very good at dancing, but not very good at reality.

You are like Rose, trying to speak in all kinds of cryptic terms, trying to leave yourselves a way out of all of your nonsense by attempting to never really commit to anything. The problem is, neither of you are intelligent enough to do so, and not one person is falling for your nonsense.

You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.

You don't get a pass on being a bigot because you are in favor of same sex marriage anymore than a black person gets a pass on being a racist because of the color of their skin.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169696
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>

Like I repeatedly stated but you being a dumbfuck failed to read - I could give a shit less if the incredibly few poloygamists want to pursue their format of marriage as long as it did not include underage brides, coercion or hiding spouses from each other.
Stereotype much?

That inner-bigot really shines through when you get angry.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169698
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts. You are very good at dancing, but not very good at reality.
You are like Rose, trying to speak in all kinds of cryptic terms, trying to leave yourselves a way out of all of your nonsense by attempting to never really commit to anything. The problem is, neither of you are intelligent enough to do so, and not one person is falling for your nonsense.
You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.
You don't get a pass on being a bigot because you are in favor of same sex marriage anymore than a black person gets a pass on being a racist because of the color of their skin.
Very well said. I couldn't have said it better. Just let me add that Dan is a jackass! And a big dope.

Funny stuff!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169699
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The aspect of allowing gays to marry involves itself with the expansion of basic liberties to a grouping of American citizens whom have been previously denied those freedoms...specifically of being allowed to marry the adult of their choice.
Your post above is a sad lie in that you want to infer I would support the government as an entity to control relationships that "they" determine harmful.
First off understand our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples. The fact that the government determined polygamy a problematic and harmful insitution was based on their past occurances with that said insitution in that they found harmful elements such as cultist aspects which led to underage marriages and unwarranted control of subjects within those cults.
I never made the statement you claim nor did I deliver anything which led to that direction...I merely advised facts.
So I can safely point ot you as not only being the dumbass here but as a liar.
Next.
The "aspect of allowing gays to marry..." "..our government is formatted.." a "grouping of American citizens"

It's real funny when dopey Dan tries to sound intelligent! Love it.

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169700
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
Marriage involves itself with the basic elements of mutual attraction, a shared love and a willingess to commit to a legal union amongst adults.
Gays can perform that circus trick as well as heterosexuals.
HJeterosexual marriages often times produce horribly abused children so your blanket claim inference that heterosexual marriages protect children more than gay families is incorrect.
There are studies 9several in fact) which displace this generalistic and unbased claim.
Here's one;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/t...
As far as identifying a gay marriage with proper wording I think the most accurate would be "marriage" itself since it encompasses the fact you can have 2 same sex members get hitched.
I'm here to help friend....all you have to do is ask.
When it's two adults you say "between" adults. If there are three or more you say "among" or "amongst" adults.

Since you used "amongst adults" and not "between adults" you must mean polygamists.

Glad you're on board Dan! Who are you, Mormon Manny all of a sudden? What about all those "inherent harms" the "formatted" government has determined? The "cultish aspects" etc?

You're a real dope, Dan.

Having fun now!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169701
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.
.......
Actually, yes you can. Straight people do it every day.

The key is the reasons you are denying those equal rights. Gay folks have already proven, categorically, that our marriages are good for our families, and good for society in general.

Gay folks want the SAME right to marry the adult single non-related person of their choice that straight folks ALREADY have. It's very simple.

And straight religious folks marrying many spouses at one time just doesn't enter into the marriage conversation for most Americans. Americans LOVE to marry multiples - just one at a time.

Do you demand that all of your straight friends, and every heterosexual married couple that you know, support marrying multiple spouses, simply because THEY can marry one at a time? Don't you think they would laugh at you for making such silly and illogical demands?

Of course you don't do that, do you, but you apply that leaky logic ONLY to gay folks.

Polygamy is a separate issue, with it's own arguments, detractors, and problems. If people wish to begin marrying many, then they will go through the appropriate channels, and prove that their marriages are good for their families, and for society, and the laws banning it will change.

If you support polygamy, then speak up. Demanding that other people who do not want to marry more than one spouse at a time support polygamy, simply because they want to marry just ONE person, is just plain silly.

But, I guess it really is all you have left, isn't it? You can't find a single logical or relevant reason to deny gay people the right to marry, so all you can do it to try to tie it to an unrelated divisive issue and hope for the best.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169702
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>It's about the only thing I agree with him on. And I noticed it wasn't very popular with the Liberals that love the big unions.
I'm waiting for Dan to start threatening to beat people up in the Home Depot parking lot again.

You know how he gets, he threatens to beat some tolerance and diversity into them!

He once threatened to beat me "into a greasy stain" because he felt I wasn't being tolerant and diverse enough. Meanwhile it's Dan who is the real bigot.

Priceless!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169703
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well said. I couldn't have said it better. Just let me add that Dan is a jackass! And a big dope.
Funny stuff!
Why do folks like yourself and AK have such difficulty differentiating between ONE, and TWO, THREE or FOUR?

It hardly seems a mark of great intelligence, since most chdilren learn this in preschool, or even before.

Perhaps using counting sticks, or pennies would help.

One plus one + one = two. One + two (or three, or four) does not = two.

Does that make it a little more clear for you?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169704
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as experimenting during sex all I can say is don't do the Lone Ranger bit.
I did. Rode the range on my stick horse naked sans a pair of boots, Stetson and toy gunbelt into my bedroom where a topless Pocahontas was waiting for me only to have my handy six shooter shift leaving a bruised notch on my love stick.
Yuck!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169705
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't any more than allowing differing races to marry opened the door to allow Farmer Brown to marry his favorite milking cow Bessie you moron.
And if polygamists want to make the fight to legalize their particular aspect of marriage it's within their right but polygamy is a completely separate entity which stands on it's own merits.
No. Equal rights are equal rights. Your bigotry against polygamists is not a "separate entity".

What a dope!
Sunny days

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169706
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

I would still say it's the Republican and stupid Tea Party Nation members fault.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169707
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The only double standard exists when heterosexuals want to ban homosexuals from marrying.
It's OK for heterosexuals to marry given it's a basic liberty all American adults should have but not homosexuals albeit they too are American citizens wishing to pursue a freedom which exhibits no harm.
You just got busted son.
Polygamists are "American citizens wishing to pursue a freedom which exhibits no harm" also.

You just got busted son.

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169708
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts.
Indeed, they are so dumb.

But that makes them real funny so it's OK.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169709
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do folks like yourself and AK have such difficulty differentiating between ONE, and TWO, THREE or FOUR?
It hardly seems a mark of great intelligence, since most chdilren learn this in preschool, or even before.
Perhaps using counting sticks, or pennies would help.
One plus one + one = two. One + two (or three, or four) does not = two.
Does that make it a little more clear for you?
Oh boy, now we're getting a smarmy arithmetic lesson! Priceless.

You think it's OK to eliminate the gender requirement in "one man one woman" but not the number requirement. Why? Please explain.

One man one woman. Why do folks like you have such trouble differentiating gender? Most children learn this in school bla bla bla.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169710
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists are "American citizens wishing to pursue a freedom which exhibits no harm" also.
You just got busted son.
What a dope!
Polygamy is already on the books as ILLEGEAL. Utah couldn't b/c a state with it. Look it up. YOU just got busted son.....what a dope! ROTFL@U

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169711
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, yes you can. Straight people do it every day.
The key is the reasons you are denying those equal rights. Gay folks have already proven, categorically, that our marriages are good for our families, and good for society in general.
Gay folks want the SAME right to marry the adult single non-related person of their choice that straight folks ALREADY have. It's very simple.
And straight religious folks marrying many spouses at one time just doesn't enter into the marriage conversation for most Americans. Americans LOVE to marry multiples - just one at a time.
Do you demand that all of your straight friends, and every heterosexual married couple that you know, support marrying multiple spouses, simply because THEY can marry one at a time? Don't you think they would laugh at you for making such silly and illogical demands?
Of course you don't do that, do you, but you apply that leaky logic ONLY to gay folks.
Polygamy is a separate issue, with it's own arguments, detractors, and problems. If people wish to begin marrying many, then they will go through the appropriate channels, and prove that their marriages are good for their families, and for society, and the laws banning it will change.
If you support polygamy, then speak up. Demanding that other people who do not want to marry more than one spouse at a time support polygamy, simply because they want to marry just ONE person, is just plain silly.
But, I guess it really is all you have left, isn't it? You can't find a single logical or relevant reason to deny gay people the right to marry, so all you can do it to try to tie it to an unrelated divisive issue and hope for the best.
Straight people discriminate against gays so it's alright for you to discriminate against polygamists. Is that what you are saying jackass?

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult men cause you or anyone else? We won't wait for an answer since you have don't have one.

What a dope!
Demon

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169712
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Just say NO, to Gover Norquist and his crazy ideas that come from the Middle East.

Republicans, Tea Party Nation members and GOP, break Grover Norquist's grip on you.

He even looks like a demon!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169713
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Sunny days wrote:
I would still say it's the Republican and stupid Tea Party Nation members fault.
Definitely Bush's fault. It was almost Romney's fault, the popular vote was close. But Obama won so it's Bush's fault for 4 more years.

Funny!

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.

Other Recent Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Ban Central Station 4,895
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards 7 hr Rayan 4
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 18 hr Nose Jobs 641
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 28 snodder 2,252
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Jul 27 Twilight sun 7,848
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 27 Facts facts 15,927
Review: Rich's Painting Jul 23 Spectacular job 1
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 30 at 12:00PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••