Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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.

Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174248 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you are the same guy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, anybody can type in any name. So, I'm not replying to you anymore. Learn what "red herring" and "straw man" mean. LOLSER!
Another wrong and stupid deduction by Rose_NoHo!

Priceless.
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174249 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another meaningless post from our resident drama queen....yawn...
Yeah, probably Rose_NoHo needs her meds adjusted, Give her some slack.
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174250 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, stupid, polygamy is a red herring. It's not the issue, the issue is gay marriage. Why not start a forum to talk about polygamy? Too dumb to know how to do that? That's my guess.
Polygamy is not a fish. It's marriage worthy of the same respect and consideration as SSM. You just call it a fish because you are a hypocrite.

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

If you're going to respond "Polygamy is a red herring!! And you think a red herring is a fish!!" again, don't bother. you already tried that. it failed.

Why are you a hypocrite?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174251 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing irresponsible games.
Demanding we head down a road while ignoring the destination.
Not only do you once again expose the weakness of your argument, you expose the lack of character that goes with it.
Smirk.
and you're not playing games yourself? you're dilluting a relationship two consenting adult want to solemnize with vows and obtain those rights the GAO listed a few yrs back (totaling to just over 1300) that are extended to only legally married couples. you're the one trying to tell us that anything other than a male/female married relationship isn't worthy of those vows to one another. you're the one that's smirking at you own (lack) of with, chum, not us.
the issues at hand are regarding the legal contract between 2 consenting adults that wish to marry. stick to the topic. when you can rationally discuss with insulting people, then chime in. without the smartasz smirks and ridiculous comparisons. until then, let the grownups talk at the grown up table.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174252 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
and you're not playing games yourself? you're dilluting a relationship two consenting adult want to solemnize with vows and obtain those rights the GAO listed a few yrs back (totaling to just over 1300) that are extended to only legally married couples. you're the one trying to tell us that anything other than a male/female married relationship isn't worthy of those vows to one another. you're the one that's smirking at you own (lack) of wit, chum, not us.
the issues at hand are regarding the legal contract between 2 consenting adults that wish to marry. stick to the topic. when you can rationally discuss withOUT insulting people, then chime in. without the smartasz smirks and ridiculous comparisons. until then, let the grownups talk at the grown up table.
dang lack of coffee in the mornings and being in a hurry.

had to correct the posting.

coffee good. more coffee better.

cheers!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174253 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is not a fish. It's marriage worthy of the same respect and consideration as SSM. You just call it a fish because you are a hypocrite.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
If you're going to respond "Polygamy is a red herring!! And you think a red herring is a fish!!" again, don't bother. you already tried that. it failed.
Why are you a hypocrite?
the more important question is : why are you here, in a thread regarding same sex marriage?
another question :
why don't you start a movement on your own to get polygamy legalized? go ahead - hire an attorney and take it to court. we'll read all about it in the news. i look forward to reading about the arguments presented in court. good luck.
Skippy

Covina, CA

#174254 Jan 11, 2013
Skippy says: get out of towners are just pests.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#174255 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the more important question is : why are you here, in a thread regarding same sex marriage?
another question :
why don't you start a movement on your own to get polygamy legalized? go ahead - hire an attorney and take it to court. we'll read all about it in the news. i look forward to reading about the arguments presented in court. good luck.
Because he doesn’t actually care at all about the subject, he is only trying to get attention, specifically a reaction from people.

look how many time he asks if someone is mad

that is the goal, talking about one small sad human here
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174256 Jan 11, 2013
Looks like the judge-it fairy is very busy this morning rigging the judge-its! Priceless!
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174257 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like man does not equal woman?
No. I mean like three does not equal two.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174258 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the more important question is : why are you here, in a thread regarding same sex marriage?
another question :
why don't you start a movement on your own to get polygamy legalized? go ahead - hire an attorney and take it to court. we'll read all about it in the news. i look forward to reading about the arguments presented in court. good luck.
Because he's not really interested in polygamy. He's interested in whining.
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174259 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the more important question is : why are you here, in a thread regarding same sex marriage?
another question :
why don't you start a movement on your own to get polygamy legalized? go ahead - hire an attorney and take it to court. we'll read all about it in the news. i look forward to reading about the arguments presented in court. good luck.
Naah. The more important question is why are you against some alternate forms of marriage while at the same time promoting your own alternate form of marriage?

Put more simply, why are you a hypocrite?

I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion of marriage equality, I wish you would participate instead of attempting to censor me.
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174260 Jan 11, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he doesn’t actually care at all about the subject, he is only trying to get attention, specifically a reaction from people.
look how many time he asks if someone is mad
that is the goal, talking about one small sad human here
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174261 Jan 11, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he doesn’t actually care at all about the subject, he is only trying to get attention, specifically a reaction from people.
look how many time he asks if someone is mad
that is the goal, talking about one small sad human here
This is a discussion forum. It doesn't work if you refuse to discuss the topic and get all angry and have hissy fits. Relax.

Polygamy is marriage, completely on topic in a discussion of marriage equality.

By your rules you cannot mention Mars in a discussion of Venus. Your rules are stupid. And the purpose of them is to censor unwelcome thought. Anti-intellectual and boring.

What a jerk!
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174262 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>No. I mean like three does not equal two.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

If you're going to respond "Polygamy is a red herring!! And you think a red herring is a fish!!" again, don't bother. you already tried that. it failed.

Why are you a hypocrite?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174263 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Naah. The more important question is why are you against some alternate forms of marriage while at the same time promoting your own alternate form of marriage?
Put more simply, why are you a hypocrite?
I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion of marriage equality, I wish you would participate instead of attempting to censor me.
This thread is about Prop 8. What does Prop 8 have to do with polygamy?
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#174264 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Because he's not really interested in polygamy. He's interested in whining.
I am interested in discussing marriage. This is a discussion forum. It won't work if you treat it like a kindergarten playground and refuse to discuss the topic to hide your bigotry. Tell me why you are against polyamory, don't just whine.

So, before I was so juvenilely interrupted, I was asking you why are you a hypocrite?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174265 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
If you're going to respond "Polygamy is a red herring!! And you think a red herring is a fish!!" again, don't bother. you already tried that. it failed.
Why are you a hypocrite?
That lame-ass excuse again?...yawn... It was laughable the first time you posted it, now it's just boring.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174266 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a discussion forum. It doesn't work if you refuse to discuss the topic and get all angry and have hissy fits. Relax.
Um.... the topic is Prop 8.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#174267 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I am interested in discussing marriage. This is a discussion forum. It won't work if you treat it like a kindergarten playground and refuse to discuss the topic to hide your bigotry. Tell me why you are against polyamory, don't just whine.
So, before I was so juvenilely interrupted, I was asking you why are you a hypocrite?
Then start your own damn thread. This is about Prop 8. I can understand why you don't wish to discuss it.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) 21 hr 3188294658bbc 48
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Sep 25 Indo frank 213
News Serial burglar arrested in DHS Sep 8 pokemon99 1
News Calif. DA's Investigator, 5 Family Members Foun... (Apr '08) Sep 7 Sorry 22
News Anthony "Clumsy" Paez Caught During Standoff (Jun '08) Sep 6 Dose palmas 14
School Sep 1 Jake miller123 2
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Aug '16 Creeps 20

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages