Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#188859 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, I cannot argue with a moron who insists I don't support my own argument. It's impossible.
But maybe you'll answer one question for me. Why would I lie? What possible motivation would I have to come here and attempt to argue a position I don't support?
You argument that I am lying is a straw man to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
You are the moron that says you won’t support your own argument, I asked if you were going to be active, get signatures for a ballot measure or what have you, and you said no.

You once said that you personally are not interested in Poly at all for yourself. So what exactly is your obsession with it in a forum about prop 8 that will not affect poly in any way whatsoever still as illegal as it was before prop 8 and will still be after prop 8 is overturned?

What exactly is your obsession with it?

I know the answer of course, so does everyone else.

But you sure don’t like it when we call you on it ( which of course is why we do )
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188860 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to sue anyone, I simply want to discuss marriage equality.
you have. you have had responses. now you're down to repeating yourself. move along to other points you may have.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188861 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is exactly what we don't need after this act of terrible act of murder and mayhem. Idiots assigning blame with absolutely no evidence, only some personal hate they want an excuse to spew.
i actually have to agree with you on this one post.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188864 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is exactly what we don't need after this act of terrible act of murder and mayhem. Idiots assigning blame with absolutely no evidence, only some personal hate they want an excuse to spew.
Agreed, actual information first, we don’t need finger pointing and political blame until we actually know what we are up against.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188865 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the moron that says you won’t support your own argument, I asked if you were going to be active, get signatures for a ballot measure or what have you, and you said no.
You once said that you personally are not interested in Poly at all for yourself. So what exactly is your obsession with it in a forum about prop 8 that will not affect poly in any way whatsoever still as illegal as it was before prop 8 and will still be after prop 8 is overturned?
What exactly is your obsession with it?
I know the answer of course, so does everyone else.
But you sure don’t like it when we call you on it ( which of course is why we do )
I simply want to discuss marriage equality. What is your obsession with assigning me motives?

You were discussing space travel this morning. Have you traveled in space? If not, by your logic you shouldn't be allowed to discuss it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188866 Apr 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you have. you have had responses. now you're down to repeating yourself. move along to other points you may have.
Most responses have been dishonest and/or hypocritical. Many SSM supporters here are hypocrites. And many are liars. And that is my main point. I will continue to make it. Maybe it's time for you to "move along to other points" though.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188867 Apr 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i actually have to agree with you on this one post.
Drat! I'm slipping! You jackasses are agreeing with me.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188868 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply want to discuss marriage equality. What is your obsession with assigning me motives?
You were discussing space travel this morning. Have you traveled in space? If not, by your logic you shouldn't be allowed to discuss it.
For what reason? Why are you so interested in Poly when it is not something you are interested in yourself.

It isn’t a crazy question, I am very interested in Same Sex marriage however I am personally not affected by it at all. Because I actually believe in the American values of justice, freedom and equality regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National origin, that also happens to be the reason I would vote in favor of poly, country before religion.( well for me almost anything before religion )

But this is different, Prop 8 is not about Poly, it was illegal before, Illegal during, and will still be illegal when Prop 8 is overturned.

When we say we would support poly you go straight to incest, which is blow by blow the slippery slope argument from the religious nut jobs we have been hearing for years.

If it waddles like a duck, and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be fairly sure.. it is a duck.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188869 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most responses have been dishonest and/or hypocritical. Many SSM supporters here are hypocrites. And many are liars. And that is my main point. I will continue to make it. Maybe it's time for you to "move along to other points" though.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
your points have been made and noted. obviously many disagree with you. is this all you have to add to the discussion regarding the judge overturning Prop 8? do you have anything pertinent to say regarding possible SCOTUS rulings or findings?

Prop 8 dealt with the definition of marriage being a man and a woman - and the couples that brought the trial forward are same sex couples - not a poly-marriage group. all facts presented in court, all expert testimony presented in court is based upon the those that brought the suit forward by being same sex couples. there was never anything included in any discussion, except in your desire to divert the discussion, in regards to poly-marriage of any sort.

do you have anything pertinent to add to the discussion with respect to the judge's findings on any level? any of the facts presented? any of the experts or their testimony in court? the appeal? SCOTUS's hearings? anything along those lines?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188870 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the moron that says you won’t support your own argument, I asked if you were going to be active, get signatures for a ballot measure or what have you, and you said no.
You once said that you personally are not interested in Poly at all for yourself. So what exactly is your obsession with it in a forum about prop 8 that will not affect poly in any way whatsoever still as illegal as it was before prop 8 and will still be after prop 8 is overturned?
What exactly is your obsession with it?
I know the answer of course, so does everyone else.
But you sure don’t like it when we call you on it ( which of course is why we do )
So if I am not out in my wheelchair gathering signatures I cannot discuss it? Please show me where you found that rule and please tell me why would I observe that stupid rule?

Do you mention Mars to the school kiddies? STOP! you have never been to Mars! You are not allowed to discuss it!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188871 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen it blamed on a "crazed homosexual" on one of these wholesome and friendly topix threads.
Maybe Obama really did do it. Or Bush!
Bush did it...puhlease...it would have been Cheney! snark!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188872 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno. Shouldn't be that hard. I don't want to discuss the technicalities of implementing it, only the concept as it applies to marriage equality.
I think poly should be allowed. I also think incest marriage should be allowed. I get a lot of weird and fervent resistance which I attribute to hypocrisy. I try to reveal that hypocrisy. I get shouted down. It's passes the time when I'm bored.
but sibling cannot get married now, regardless of their gender, so htat argument makes no sense.

if hte details of hte polygamous marriage are nto worked out, how can you say it would be equal? three wives getting the same survivor benefits for SS? not equal to my marriage...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188873 Apr 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
your points have been made and noted. obviously many disagree with you. is this all you have to add to the discussion regarding the judge overturning Prop 8? do you have anything pertinent to say regarding possible SCOTUS rulings or findings?
Prop 8 dealt with the definition of marriage being a man and a woman - and the couples that brought the trial forward are same sex couples - not a poly-marriage group. all facts presented in court, all expert testimony presented in court is based upon the those that brought the suit forward by being same sex couples. there was never anything included in any discussion, except in your desire to divert the discussion, in regards to poly-marriage of any sort.
do you have anything pertinent to add to the discussion with respect to the judge's findings on any level? any of the facts presented? any of the experts or their testimony in court? the appeal? SCOTUS's hearings? anything along those lines?
My point is simple. Supporting same sex marriage but not polygamy is hypocritical.

The fact that it makes you and Big D angry is just more evidence that it is hypocritical.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188874 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Bush did it...puhlease...it would have been Cheney! snark!
I notice Obama in his second term has stopped saying he inherited a bad economy.

Look at the Middle East before and after Obama.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188875 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple. Supporting same sex marriage but not polygamy is hypocritical.
The fact that it makes you and Big D angry is just more evidence that it is hypocritical.
ok. so you stated your opinion. keep in mind, everyone has the same right as you to form their own opinion.

and i'm far from angry. strangers on the internet do not have that capacity to control my emotions. you just don't like being called out on your slipperly slope arguments as big d is doing.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188876 Apr 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
your points have been made and noted. obviously many disagree with you. is this all you have to add to the discussion regarding the judge overturning Prop 8? do you have anything pertinent to say regarding possible SCOTUS rulings or findings?
Prop 8 dealt with the definition of marriage being a man and a woman - and the couples that brought the trial forward are same sex couples - not a poly-marriage group. all facts presented in court, all expert testimony presented in court is based upon the those that brought the suit forward by being same sex couples. there was never anything included in any discussion, except in your desire to divert the discussion, in regards to poly-marriage of any sort.
do you have anything pertinent to add to the discussion with respect to the judge's findings on any level? any of the facts presented? any of the experts or their testimony in court? the appeal? SCOTUS's hearings? anything along those lines?
What part of prop 8 "marriage is one man one woman only" confuses you?

Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy the same as it does against same sex marriage. You know, equally. It's a simple concept really. "one" means exactly what it says.

Don't hog all the victimhood.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188877 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So if I am not out in my wheelchair gathering signatures I cannot discuss it? Please show me where you found that rule and please tell me why would I observe that stupid rule?
Do you mention Mars to the school kiddies? STOP! you have never been to Mars! You are not allowed to discuss it!
It isn’t that you aren’t allowed to discuss it Frankie, you can say whatever you want here, and we can laugh at you for it, the same as you laugh at us for anything and everything we say. Don’t pretend you don’t it is far too late for that.

That isn’t the point, the point is if you are going to use the decades old standard playbook against same sex marriage, word for word that we have been hearing for years... don’t be too surprised when we call you on it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188878 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but sibling cannot get married now, regardless of their gender, so htat argument makes no sense.
if hte details of hte polygamous marriage are nto worked out, how can you say it would be equal? three wives getting the same survivor benefits for SS? not equal to my marriage...
Why can't siblings marry? First cousins can in many states.

Siblings should be allowed to marry. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? right.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188879 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple. Supporting same sex marriage but not polygamy is hypocritical.
The fact that it makes you and Big D angry is just more evidence that it is hypocritical.
My point is simple claiming to support same sex marriage or poly when you actually aren’t is hypocritical

and this is from someone that would, and has voted for same sex marriage and will vote in favor of Poly if and when it ever comes up.

I am willing to wager I am more in favor of Poly than you are, it is just that you are more obsessed with the subject because you think you can use it against same sex marriage.

I am less interested in it because I don’t think it will be possible for at least a decade. Same was true of same sex marriage 10 years ago.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188880 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't siblings marry? First cousins can in many states.
Siblings should be allowed to marry. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? right.
if you want to change that law, go ahead, but it doesn't wash with the marriage equality argument...

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) Wed Chechi6 67
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Nov 29 SnottyGurl 24
News The Pass2 men charged with attempted murder in ... Nov 24 Cabazon 4real 1
David Thornton Sells Obama Salts For Millions. ... Oct '16 Patriot 1
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Oct '16 never really a part 227
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages