Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 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.

commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#214341 Sep 4, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>---
----
Homosexuality is not a choice! Drugs, alcohol, and prostitution are choices.
Really?, drug users put stuff into their body usually knowing it is bad but they like the high and do it anyways. Prostitutes let people put things into their body, knowing it may not be right but they like the money and do it anyways. Homosexuals have homo sex for personal pleasure, willingly putting, or letting people put things into their body, otherwise if it was forceful it would be rape. Don't put weird schit into your body and you'll be fine. Dr. Hetero.
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#214342 Sep 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. I get banned often. Bad Frankie! Must be punished. It amuses me. Means I am being very effective.
I like the way you rile up the fruitloops. Better than me! Carry on.
Like a weird sit-com. Be back next weel....f-man put to the screw for someone elses attempt at idiot humor. Yuk yuk a doodle doo>
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#214343 Sep 4, 2013
next week dumb asss.
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#214344 Sep 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down fruitloops you're screaming.
Thanks, got that outta my system, phew!
dribbling

Covina, CA

#214345 Sep 4, 2013
This is just a general notice to the knuckle heads that post dribbling c r a p e r s binders.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214346 Sep 4, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
sent packing? gee, must've been after they worked together to orgainze the march on washington, or perhaps form the Southern Christian Leadership Council...or maybe because some nutjob assassinated MLK in 1963....or maybe he decided to go and head a new trade union movement as the AFLCIO invited him to do after the civil rights act of 1964 was passed....
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArusti...
"Wilkins also feared that the fact that Rustin had been imprisoned several times for both refusing to fight in the armed forces and for acts of homosexuality, would be used against him in the days leading up to the march. However, Martin Luther King and Philip Randolph insisted that he was the best person for the job.
Wilkins was right to be concerned about a possible smear campaign against Rustin. Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, had been keeping a file on Rustin for many years. An FBI undercover agent managed to take a photograph of Rustin talking to King while he was having a bath. This photograph was then used to support false stories being circulated that Rustin was having a homosexual relationship with King.
This information was now passed on to white politicians in the Deep South who feared that a successful march on Washington would persuade President Lyndon B. Johnson to sponsor a proposed new civil rights act. Storm Thurmond led the campaign against Rustin making several speeches where he described him as a "communist, draft dodger and homosexual".
Most newspapers condemned the idea of a mass march on Washington. An editorial in the New York Herald Tribune warned that: "If Negro leaders persist in their announced plans to march 100,000-strong on the capital they will be jeopardizing their cause. The ugly part of this particular mass protest is its implication of unconstrained violence if Congress doesn't deliver."
The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on 28th August, 1963, was a great success. Estimates on the size of the crowd varied from between 250,000 to 400,000. Speakers included Philip Randolph (AFL-CIO), Martin Luther King (SCLC), Floyd McKissick (CORE), John Lewis (SNCC), Roy Wilkins (NAACP), Witney Young (National Urban League) and Walter Reuther (AFL-CIO). King was the final speaker and made his famous I Have a Dream speech.
Rustin was highly valued by the trade union movement, and when the AFL-CIO decided in 1965 to fund a new civil rights organisation, the Philip Randolph Institute, he was asked to be its leader. Names after his close friend, Philip Randolph, Rustin worked for the organization until 1979.
In his final years Rustin was active in the protests against the Vietnam War and in the gay rights movement. In 1986 he claimed: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
Bayard Rustin died in New York on 24th August, 1987."
Sent him packing. Heard it on NPR on the anniversary.

Never the less, MLK never would have gone for calling SS couples married.

You know that.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#214347 Sep 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah yeah. I know. Gay believer GOOD. Straight believer BAD!
Is this the "real" Frankie, or someone who's just pretending to be Frankie?

If you read my post then you'll note that I said I don't care which side of the SSM issue you fall on. I don't go after people who don't support SSM or those who do support SSM when it comes to their belief in Christ.

If you remember Laughing Man, he frequently claimed that he did not believe in Christ. It wasn't an issue for me. I didn't attack him for it. So why should I attack anyone else?

I'm not a pastor. At best I "witness"--which has always been an odd verb if you ask me. But basically all that means is that I tell my story, I repeat my beliefs, and that's it.

I debate people when they try to tell me that I should believe otherwise.

Now, back to this notion of you being impersonated... So, we're to believe that any "nasty" comments made under your name have been done by an impersonator? Really?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#214348 Sep 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the guy he sent packing?
MLK would never have accepted calling SS couples married.
Isn't that interesting? You're now the mouthpiece for Dr. King...

Coretta Scott King made the following comments in 2004 as the right-wing zealots tried to bring about a Constitutional Amendment that would have made same-sex marriage illegal: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

So, who should we believe? You? Or the woman who was married to Dr. King?
Floater

Covina, CA

#214349 Sep 4, 2013
What happened to the posting topic floater?
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#214350 Sep 4, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this the "real" Frankie, or someone who's just pretending to be Frankie?
If you read my post then you'll note that I said I don't care which side of the SSM issue you fall on. I don't go after people who don't support SSM or those who do support SSM when it comes to their belief in Christ.
If you remember Laughing Man, he frequently claimed that he did not believe in Christ. It wasn't an issue for me. I didn't attack him for it. So why should I attack anyone else?
I'm not a pastor. At best I "witness"--which has always been an odd verb if you ask me. But basically all that means is that I tell my story, I repeat my beliefs, and that's it.
I debate people when they try to tell me that I should believe otherwise.
Now, back to this notion of you being impersonated... So, we're to believe that any "nasty" comments made under your name have been done by an impersonator? Really?
Too stoopid to understand sarcasm. Sheeesh!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214351 Sep 4, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that interesting? You're now the mouthpiece for Dr. King...
Coretta Scott King made the following comments in 2004 as the right-wing zealots tried to bring about a Constitutional Amendment that would have made same-sex marriage illegal: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
So, who should we believe? You? Or the woman who was married to Dr. King?
And her own daughter disputes that view, as her father would too.

Maintaining marriage as it has been historically and cross culturally is 'gay bashing'???

MLK was too smart to make such a stupid statement.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214353 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. MLK was for liberating those who were oppressed. His focus at the time was obviously for the injustices focused towards blacks in this country but it's easy to see how his views would have extended to the gay populace. Added to that is his wife's testimony and the fact you cannot put words into the mouth of a dead man. There are no indications he would have not supported gay marriage. In fact it's the opposite. To lay claim he would have would be akin to claiming Albert Einstein would have rather used a set of tarot cards to determine wind resistance on space bound rockets rather than utilize scientific means. Martin Luther King was a man about freedom, not a man who supported limitations of the same.
Your analogy is ridiculous.

I don't doubt that MLK would have supported equal rights for GLBTs.

Calling a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half 'marriage' would not fly.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214357 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Post number 214346 written by you;
"Never the less, MLK never would have gone for calling SS couples married."
And now you do a 180 by advising this;
"I don't doubt that MLK would have supported equal rights for GLBTs."
So which is it? You don't make sense by offering your opinion based on two polar opposing views. It's somewhat like going to a pancake house while moaning you're dying to eat a stack of 10 of them smothered in maple syrup for breakfast while telling the waitress you hate flapjacks with a passion.
So which is it? Do you believe MLK would have supported gay marriage or not?
Ss couples do not equate to marriage.

Being treated fairly is another issue.

This is not difficult.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214358 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly.
That or it's too advanced for you to fully grasp.
Now you are just being troll stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214360 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
And WTF is this?????
"Mutually sterile"?? Are you to claim gays pursuing marriage are sterile??
Hardly. Their makeup is the same as heterosexuals in that they are able to either fertilize a member of the opposite sex if male or to be fertilized by a male as a female if they so wish.
"Duplicate gendered"??? Is that like calling a 12 ounce can of Coca-Cola a "carbonated cylindrical shaped aluminum skinned container of a sweetened beverage".
I'll stick with a can of Coke and the term of gay couples.
And "half marriage".- Either you're a married couple of your single. Some guy holding a bouquet of flowers wearing a tux while standing next to a limo in front of a church while a pastor waits inside all the while thinking some stranger will pass by at some point in time, fall in love and make him "fully married" still makes no sense to this fabricated term of "half married".
1. "mutually sterile" is not the same as "sterile". Are you really asserting that a ss couple can procreate just between them? This isn't rocket science blondie...

2. Now you are confused about a duplicate gendered couple? Really? I suppose a diverse gendered couple would blow your brains! My guess is it would sound like a burp instead of a bang...

3. ss marriage is an oxymoron.

Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.

A ss couple cannot equate to a single one of these distinctions.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214369 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, your 'distinctions' seem to be based on your opinions. Not fact.
Really.

Be specific.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214370 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I am not blonde. Your first throw and a miss.
You did not limit the parties involved to a gay couple in terms of procreation. You inferred that those involved in a gay couple were 'sterile'. I merely advised you that was incorrect in that most are indeed able to have offspring. It has been done already in terms of artificial insemination by donor sperm and the like.
2.) No confusion.
3.) Many marriages of opposite sexed couples are not 'miraculous' or 'balanced' unless you deem the 60-70% divorce rate among most as being a miracle as well. As far as planets uniting you make no sense. Planets revolve within solar systems and do not make conscious choices as to their proximity or being.
You don't seem to be able to ascertain your opinions with fact but some sort of twisted poetic idealism. I'm sorry, you're just not convincing.
1. First you deny it, then you turn around and confirm it.

2. Yes, I did. That's what mutually sterile means. You tried to slip it by, and I called your gay twirling.

3. People breaking their vows does not invalidate those who maintain them.

"Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" sold 500 million copies.

Only a lesbian blonde would be unfamiliar with the book or the analogy...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214375 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
I was specific. Your stance that gays are either not married or should not be married are based on your various opinions with no factual support.
We can put that in another context by stating it appears to me at least you are determining your opinion or opinions should be held as factual information when the truth is they are based on your views of the matter without any proof.
As one example would prove you showed no proof the late Martin Luther King would be against gay marriage but merely speculated he would given some claim his daughter advised so yet never answered to the fact his widow advised otherwise.
If it is your opinion gays cannot be married you are allowed that but to deny they have already been married with more continuing to do so is nothing more than delusional.
I'm sorry, like I mentioned before you're not convincing in your arguments here.
No blondie, you were not specific. Which points are not factual and why.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214376 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed to answer the question posed to you given your confusing statement(s) in which you claimed both MLK would be for gays marrying and MLK would be against gay marriage.
So again, which is it? Do you believe MLK would be for gay marriage or against the idea?
I answered in post 214357.

Why are you trying to change the subject???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#214377 Sep 4, 2013
Cats with glasses wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way,
this is not a known term. Given I am neither gay nor was I in the cheerleading squad leading the marching band while handling a baton within my lifetime you'll need to explain such an asinine comment.
It is the gay version of the 'spin zone', except with a limp wristed gay brain.

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) 22 hr Daddy 40
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Aug 23 Creeps 20
Young couple have job offer in Rancho Mirage - Aug 21 gjstewart 1
Need a place to let my golden swim and play Jul 29 Anonymous 1
universal covenant ministries? (Sep '07) Jul '16 Yolanda perez 4
Indian Wells Music Thread Jul '16 Logan A 2
News Teen boy alleges school district concealed sexu... Jun '16 actionvideo 1

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages