Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,370

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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181302 Feb 25, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
"pro-equality?" Hardly, you're just interested in a cause, not really interested in equality, but then again none of you really are.
But hey, you guys never let rational thought get in the way of a good protest. I guess it makes you guys feel like you have a purpose.
Do you have a point?
No, you don't. You're just a bitter troll.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181303 Feb 25, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are against equal rights for everyone? You are against the right of everyone to live their life the way they choose?
I guess you really aren't all that interested in keeping the government out of your bedroom after all.
Do you have a point? You post doesn't have anything to do with arguments for or against gay marriage.
jkhjhjube6trbyey b

United States

#181304 Feb 25, 2013
uynt6y

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181305 Feb 25, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a lie. I took up the glove. And smacked your pet across the mouth with it.
Not, you remind me of the Black Knight. Go ahead and google it.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#181306 Feb 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".
So true. Heís just another jackass who thinks heís come up with a sly way to hate on Gay Americans. Itís laughable that he thinks calling a Gay American a hypocrite makes them mad or hurts their feelings. When heís put in his place he resorts to name calling (a typical hater tactic to marginalize Gay Americans).

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181307 Feb 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He's real mad and won't say. Probably sulking today.
Golly Frank, I like being in your head.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181308 Feb 25, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I did that. In the other forum.
Yes and so did I. He's not interested in it, he's a troll with an anger management problem and a very unhealthy obsession with me.

He created two troll thread against me then he says he's "in my head". When of course it's obviously the other way around.

He's just like his dopey minion Godsmacked. Declares he's winning when he'l losing badly. They both have had a bad day.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181309 Feb 25, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Golly Frank, I like being in your head.
Sounds pretty unhealthy for you fruitloops. Deal with it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181310 Feb 25, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. Heís just another jackass who thinks heís come up with a sly way to hate on Gay Americans. Itís laughable that he thinks calling a Gay American a hypocrite makes them mad or hurts their feelings. When heís put in his place he resorts to name calling (a typical hater tactic to marginalize Gay Americans).
I support gay marriage. What don't you understand about that jackass?

Perhaps you'll offer some theories on why I would lie, genuis. Can't wait.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#181311 Feb 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and so did I. He's not interested in it, he's a troll with an anger management problem and a very unhealthy obsession with me.
He created two troll thread against me then he says he's "in my head". When of course it's obviously the other way around.
He's just like his dopey minion Godsmacked. Declares he's winning when he'l losing badly. They both have had a bad day.
POE, keep up, try again.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181313 Feb 25, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>POE, keep up, try again.
POS try again.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181314 Feb 25, 2013
Jake wrote:
Anyone that supports gay marriage is a fking fagg@t, no exceptions.
You're scaring Jizzybird! He never met a real homophobe. He won't challenge you. Too scared of the real thing.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181317 Feb 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, don't have a right to be happy. As horrible as you are, you obviously aren't, and no law is being broken.
You're pretty horrible yourself toots. And stupid.

But you have the right to pursue happiness as we all do. Stop wasting it.

Get a job. Start paying taxes.
Straight not zigzag

Pacifica, CA

#181318 Feb 25, 2013
Gross, same sex relationships and marriage is just a perversion of love , next thing you know people who love their Dog so much they marry it. when humans make love they make children and not poop.
Mother

Delano, CA

#181319 Feb 25, 2013
Ugh

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181321 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
If nobody else will answer this, then I will:
Our right to limit marriage to one person is backed by the fact that no stigma in our psyche rationally provokes us to want to mate with more than one person. Maybe on a conscious level that may seem like the case sometimes, but it doesn't resonate subconsciously, or at least has not yet been shown to by psychologists.
Which is exactly the opposite case for homosexuality. Scientists, biologists, psychologists - they've all reached the same conclusion regarding this. When it's looked at in an objective, unbiased light, any experienced practician can see the trend: homosexuality is just as genetic as taste buds. The desire to commit bigamy is not.
Gay relationships are not the equivalent of bigamy and shouldn't be equated as such.
BS

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior.

What does that mean in part?

A constraint on the evolutionary PRIORITY to pass DNA along to as many as possible. Marriage actually constrains the evolutionary desire for numerous mates, and requires the male care for their offspring and support the mother.

What you actually point out is clear evidence that homosexuality is a genetic DEFECT.

Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181322 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
You bet, buddy.
History has shown this: given enough momentum, a rights-activism movement in America cannot be stopped (i.e. racial equality, gender equality, the American revolution...)
Everyone has a purpose. That's what sets the two sides of this debate apart; one side's extreme is shown to consistently show more faith in human capability than the other.
And it ain't your side, if I may resort to briefly using Texan slang.
Blacks were able to clearly show human identity with other races. Women are having a much more difficult time. Why? Because there are clear and obvious distinctions between genders.

Before gays claim equal rights, they have to accurately prove identity.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective failure of not just mating behavior, but the very core goal of evolution.

You don't just fail to equate the ss 'marriage' movement to marriage, you fail to equate it to any legitimate rights movement!

Hilariously, you first attempt to ignore one of many simple implications; If you dumb down marriage to a friendship, you open a Pandora's box of consequences, the most obvious being bigamy.

First you try to ignore the point, then you try to eradicate it out of this discussion by moving it to another thread, and now you assert the momentum overrules the legal implications that show the idiocy of your position. Incredulous denial, not to mention unmitigated ignorance.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181323 Feb 26, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to legalize multiple-partner marriage than go right on ahead, see where you get.
It will immediately follow any legalization of ss 'marriage', along with a host of other issues. Oh, and distainingly calling it the 'slippery slope' argument doesn't change it's validity.

Already, the extension of spouse benefits in the military to gay couples has caused a legitimate claim of discrimination by heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.

The fact is, if committed relationship of any gender is redefined as marriage, the number certainly must also be designated as discrimination. A fundamental reason marriage constrained gender and number was this; A child has one mother and one father. Never any more or less.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#181324 Feb 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And we were all treated equally when it came to marrying someone of the same race. But since a white person couldn't marry a black person, while a black person could, they weren't treated equally.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. Not equal.
Actually Rosie we weren't. First, not every racial combination was prohibited, only certain ones. It wasn't applied equally. Second, who or what determined "race"?. Third, there are numerous races/ethnic groups, but only two sexes. Lastly, how is a person who is half of one and half of another classified in terms of who they can marry?
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. Not equal.
Physically impossible. A man can marry a woman and vice versa.
Everybody can only marry one person. Equal.
Should everybody be able to marry more than one person?
Actually they can, its just not legally recognized.
Well, I'm sure you're not the first person to come up with the idea, why not see if there is a forum about that subject?
True, its as old as monogamous marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#181325 Feb 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Responsible people, meaning anyone but me I suppose.
You can discuss traveling to Mars without knowing the date it will be possible and I can discuss polygamy without knowing the date when it will be possible.
Your beginnings of reasonableness about it is the result of my tireless effort.
You can discuss anything you want, and I can laugh at you for it, just as you do to others.

I have not changed my position at all, I am not opposed to the concept of Poly, but am opposed to groups that have used it to commit criminal acts on the underage.

I would vote in favor of it as I see no logical reason not to, however I donít see the issue coming up in the near term because of the tremendously negative image in the general public

You claim to be reasonable? You are anything but, as nearly everyone has already pointed out
.

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
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) 1 hr larae 155
mexican landscapers dump in the desert 18 hr Alice 48
Any gay men in coachella valley, Ca. Who'd like... Fri Denny 6
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... Fri Bart 12
Why Blame the Police for Aggressive Behavior Feb 24 Culture Auditor 5
Gated Communiies - PEEPERS aka LANDSCAPERS! - B... Feb 24 VigilanteBlonde 1
Review: Coachella Valley Collection Service Feb 24 Undyingdebt 2

Winter Storm Warning for Riverside County was issued at March 01 at 4:25AM PST

Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:45 am PST