Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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

#177871 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
When I say the judges decision bodes well for poly you disagree. That's where.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177872 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and he also lied about my hatred of the concept
I donít... I hate what far to many of the adherents do with it, child molestation and welfare fraud.
Here comes the Big D "you're a liar" straw man!

Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177873 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.
Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.
There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Is your objection to poly on religious grounds? You hate religion, some polygamists are religious therefore you hate polygamy?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177874 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
It's common sense that removing the gender part of one man one woman makes it easier to remove the number part.

Even if Miss Thnig is too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Or both.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177875 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... it's arbitrary, ain't it? LMFAO@you
On what grounds do you insist on the traditional, ARBITRARY, discriminatory and indefensible number of two?

P.S. The answer is not "LMFAO@you"
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177876 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your objection to poly on religious grounds? You hate religion, some polygamists are religious therefore you hate polygamy?
well first you have to stop lying and say I have an objection to poly marriage, I have not said that.

Learn to read English, I have an objection of many of the adherents of it that use it for an excuse for child abuse and welfare fraud.

Take away those adherents ( which I think we should do ), and you take away a large number of the adherents and supporters of it.

What is am saying is that it just isnít an issue that will come up for the next decade or so.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177877 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume it because of your avoidance of the issue.
And I know it because of your infamous anti poly rant of a year or so ago. You can deny it but you and I both know it's true.
ASSume, yes you do, and most of the time you are WRONG.

You can't even follow your posts from 5 minutes ago. How can you possibly remember something that I wrote over a year ago?

The funny thing is, I do remember the post you are referring to. It wasn't my opinion. I told you I didn't have an opinion either way. Then you asked what are some of the opinions given by people who DO think polygamy is bad. I Googled it and copy&pasted it for your lazy ass. Now, it becomes "my" opinion, eh? Your memory is fucked.

How many times do I have to tell you I have NO opinion about poygamy before it sinks in? I didn't care one year ago, I don't care today and I won't care in the future. Pointing out the errors in your reasoning is NOT the same thing as taking a stand against polygamy. I don't care.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#177878 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Not all gays are atheists like you. You can be gay and believe in a higher power.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177879 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
well first you have to stop lying and say I have an objection to poly marriage, I have not said that.
Learn to read English, I have an objection of many of the adherents of it that use it for an excuse for child abuse and welfare fraud.
Take away those adherents ( which I think we should do ), and you take away a large number of the adherents and supporters of it.
What is am saying is that it just isnít an issue that will come up for the next decade or so.
The Big D "liar" straw man! It's old. And it's a lie.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177880 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
On what grounds do you insist on the traditional, ARBITRARY, discriminatory and indefensible number of two?
P.S. The answer is not "LMFAO@you"
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????

INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah

OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177881 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
ASSume, yes you do, and most of the time you are WRONG.
You can't even follow your posts from 5 minutes ago. How can you possibly remember something that I wrote over a year ago?
The funny thing is, I do remember the post you are referring to. It wasn't my opinion. I told you I didn't have an opinion either way. Then you asked what are some of the opinions given by people who DO think polygamy is bad. I Googled it and copy&pasted it for your lazy ass. Now, it becomes "my" opinion, eh? Your memory is fucked.
How many times do I have to tell you I have NO opinion about poygamy before it sinks in? I didn't care one year ago, I don't care today and I won't care in the future. Pointing out the errors in your reasoning is NOT the same thing as taking a stand against polygamy. I don't care.
So I am wrong? You fully support the legalization of polygamy?

Then why did you cut and paste others ignorance and bigotry about it? To prove you supported it? I think you are giving us an alternate history of your year old post. But at least NOW you admit you made it, you have been denying it until this point.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177882 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????
INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah
OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.
Translation- You lose. Bye!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177883 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big D "liar" straw man! It's old. And it's a lie.
Ok point to the post where I said I was against poly marriage and not specifically certain adherents of it.

you either do that... or you were lying

up to you

Other people have already pointed out your dishonesty, so they will get to see this too.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177884 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation- You lose. Bye!
Danths's Law ( chuckle )
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177886 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok point to the post where I said I was against poly marriage and not specifically certain adherents of it.
you either do that... or you were lying
up to you
Other people have already pointed out your dishonesty, so they will get to see this too.
You rant against polygamy's "adherents" like some crazed fundie does against same sex marriage "adherents".

Calling them child molesters and other ignorant accusations. There are bad people of all stripes jackass. In same sex marriages too.

But I'm not going to go for your "you're a liar!" straw man today Big Dope. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177888 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You rant against polygamy's "adherents" like some crazed fundie does against same sex marriage "adherents".
Calling them child molesters and other ignorant accusations. There are bad people of all stripes jackass. In same sex marriages too.
But I'm not going to go for your "you're a liar!" straw man today Big Dope. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I rant against what they do, or are you saying you are pro-child molestation and welfare fraud?

I never said all adherents, I said many, which is true.
Mocker

Novato, CA

#177889 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>

How many times do I have to tell you I have NO opinion about poygamy before it sinks in? I didn't care one year ago, I don't care today and I won't care in the future. Pointing out the errors in your reasoning is NOT the same thing as taking a stand against polygamy. I don't care.
Holy crap!! You guys have been having the gay/poly argument for a year? The damn horse is deader than VHS.

Personally, don't really care about polygamy except yeah, some people that practice it are fucked up in the head. The other issue is money. If you were to legalize polygamy you're basically saying employers have to cover all 14 of his wives (whoever "he" is) under his health care plan, right? In that regard it IS different than same sex marriage. I'm sure there are other areas where money would factor in as well.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177890 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????
INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah
OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.
Let's run your argument by replacing gender where you use number shall we? Aw hell you do it, you get my drift.

You think gender was picked at random with no reasoning behind it?????????? bla bla bla... You finish it Miss Thing.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177892 Jan 31, 2013
Mocker wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap!! You guys have been having the gay/poly argument for a year? The damn horse is deader than VHS.
Personally, don't really care about polygamy except yeah, some people that practice it are fucked up in the head. The other issue is money. If you were to legalize polygamy you're basically saying employers have to cover all 14 of his wives (whoever "he" is) under his health care plan, right? In that regard it IS different than same sex marriage. I'm sure there are other areas where money would factor in as well.
It is a dead horse.

That second point is used by many of them constantly, they marry several young wives, each on welfare.

It is quite s scheme getting money from the government that way

I donít give a crap about it either, but I certainly donít like the way many adherents of it are using it.
Mocker

Novato, CA

#177894 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a dead horse.
That second point is used by many of them constantly, they marry several young wives, each on welfare.
It is quite s scheme getting money from the government that way
I donít give a crap about it either, but I certainly donít like the way many adherents of it are using it.
This is off topic but I had to read about the poly welfare abuse. Apparently because they AREN'T allowed to legally marry, all the other "moms" can obtain welfare by saying they're single parents. That's very screwed up but it actually makes a small argument for legalizing their marriages.

That said, I still see a LOT of other downsides (like the insurance/benefits issue I mentioned previously). Better they should go after the assholes for welfare abuse.

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
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 min Bikerboy 7,956
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 5 hr theos 2,276
Perrotte gains support for early release (Jun '07) 23 hr ET SNELL 26
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sat free for all 5,081
Do you approve of Mary Bono Mack as Representat... (Jul '12) Sat marcella williams 4
Scottish-Americans mixed on keeping kingdom united Sat James 3
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••