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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206411 Aug 2, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither would you, because you weren't at war. You are making shyt up, being the lying troll you are.
Smile
I'm sure you weren't. It's real easy to tell you're a coward. And they don't take morbidly obese half men with low IQ like you. You wouldn't like it anyway, probably get a section 8. So it's for the best for everyone. YUK!YUK!YUK!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#206412 Aug 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
It's like every day another imbecile falls off the turnip truck.
AGAIN, I'll spell it out for you "intellectuals":
The SCROTUS followed the political winds. In other words, politicians follow the votes.
As for the public, SCROTUS shot down TWO (count 'em!) two public referendums.
And if you're trying to propagandize that the Lowest Common Denominator approves of you, then you're a blithering imbecile.
Bottom line (did I make a funny?) is that the homosexists have "approval" only because of politics, fear (via "hate crimes" and ThoughtCrime legislation, political correctness, etc ) and the intelligence of the Common Man.
Thank me.
It's funny when bigots can't come up with a factually supported argument, so they merely bloviate their opinion.

The reality remains that you made a stupid claim, which is easily proven to be false.

Hold on to your hat, because so long as bigots, like yourself, can't come up with a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry (which, consequently would render such a restriction constitutional), you are going to continue to lose in court.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206413 Aug 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I might not have met a friend on the battlefield, but you can't say that I don't know about having close friends. How do you make that kind of leap?
You wouldn't understand. Don't worry about it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#206414 Aug 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Irving’s Laws of homosexual “debate”:
Rule Two B:
When on the losing side of a debate, which is 100 percent of the time, a homosexual will, within the first three posts, invariably create out of whole cloth that there are “many” non-existent “studies” which will back up it’s claims that opponents are “unenlightened closeted bigoted racist haters”, legitimate and unbiased studies which cannot and will not be sourced by the homosexual claimant when pressed.
I made no such claim. I asserted that your statistic was infantile and lacked a basis in fact or reality.

Each time you assert your 100% statistic, it is just an admission that you have no valid argument. Congratulations, you've done an excellent job of making yourself look foolish.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206415 Aug 2, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They need to feel like the bond they have with friends is more "special".
Thy don't have the "I'm married and you cant be" way to feel "special" anymore so they have to fall back on a different one.
What a lame disrespectful post. "They" includes you moron. Unless you are lying about your service. Which wouldn't surprise us at all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#206416 Aug 2, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Law of Homophobe argument
Rule #1
If same sex marriage becomes legal and recognized, pretend it has not.
Unless its not legal nationwide.
Hanger downers too

Covina, CA

#206417 Aug 2, 2013
Hanger downers are also laughing at you too!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206418 Aug 2, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical response from a POS Tennessee trailer trash. Swallow one of your teeth on that one pappy? You're hardly qualified to call anyone a mental defective let alone thinking you know where to stick it, the way you've been porking that fat barefoot sister.
Buy your sister some shoes then. And suggest a diet plan. He can't help it if she's a slob. You are too.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206419 Aug 2, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an intentional oxymoron, asstroll. Geez you guys are stupid.
Sure. You meant to be a moron. It was intentional. We believe you.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206420 Aug 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Pee-Wee Herman said "I meant to do that".
Imbecile.
LOL! High five!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206421 Aug 2, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Law of Homophobe argument
Rule #1
If same sex marriage becomes legal and recognized, pretend it has not.
Rule #1 of buttholery- Be a sore winner.
laughing man

Pulaski, TN

#206422 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny when bigots can't come up with a factually supported argument, so they merely bloviate their opinion.
The reality remains that you made a stupid claim, which is easily proven to be false.
Hold on to your hat, because so long as bigots, like yourself, can't come up with a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry (which, consequently would render such a restriction constitutional), you are going to continue to lose in court.
Then prove it to be false, shitferbrains.

I'll wait.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206423 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny when bigots can't come up with a factually supported argument, so they merely bloviate their opinion.
The reality remains that you made a stupid claim, which is easily proven to be false.
Hold on to your hat, because so long as bigots, like yourself, can't come up with a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry (which, consequently would render such a restriction constitutional), you are going to continue to lose in court.
He declared loudly, including no factually supported argument of his own in his post.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206424 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such claim. I asserted that your statistic was infantile and lacked a basis in fact or reality.
Each time you assert your 100% statistic, it is just an admission that you have no valid argument. Congratulations, you've done an excellent job of making yourself look foolish.
"You have no argument!" lides foolishly snarled without an argument.
laughing man

Pulaski, TN

#206425 Aug 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! High five!
Two of 'em.

The lonely Stains® are in an infantile rage this Friday morning. They must not have any hopes of intestinal spelunking this weekend.
Fronkies

Covina, CA

#206426 Aug 2, 2013
Fronkie you were told your computer privilege's were suspended so get off the computer.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#206427 Aug 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. You meant to be a moron. It was intentional. We believe you.
Better to have intention than just being one, like you. Calm down fruit loops, you weren't even being addressed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#206428 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny when bigots can't come up with a factually supported argument, so they merely bloviate their opinion.
The reality remains that you made a stupid claim, which is easily proven to be false.
As do u when u claim gay people don't have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide.
Hold on to your hat, because so long as bigots, like yourself, can't come up with a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry
There ya go again....arguing for polygamy. How else could a same sex couple marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide?
(which, consequently would render such a restriction constitutional), you are going to continue to lose in court.
Such a "restriction" covers all men and women, those with same sex sexual attraction are still men or women, and as such are constitutionally eligible to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206429 Aug 2, 2013
Fronkies wrote:
Fronkie you were told your computer privilege's were suspended so get off the computer.
No.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#206430 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such claim. I asserted that your statistic was infantile and lacked a basis in fact or reality.
Each time you assert your 100% statistic, it is just an admission that you have no valid argument. Congratulations, you've done an excellent job of making yourself look foolish.
Yeah, alright. 99% of the time!

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) Nov 30 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