Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,189

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
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203260 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what I said moron? No. I didn't say "I agree that if man has more than one wife, and children by all of his wives they all should be on welfare." Why are you such a lying moron?
I said the reason you perceive welfare abuse is the fault of polygamy being illegal. Only one wife is allowed, any others are single mothers and thus entitled to benefits. I know it's hard for you to understand that because I've said it four times now and you still don't get it. But try.
Anyway, perceived or real, welfare abuse is not a reason to deny equal protection. And cost is certainly not a reason to deny equal protection for SSM or polygamy. Try again.
P.S. You do realize you are arguing against marriage equality I hope.
What's really funny is that he claims that the polygamists are trying to get on welfare, when they can have THEIR OWN BABIES, and work as well... Less likely to go on welfare when 1 spouse can stay at home and watch all the naturally earned babies, while everyone else goes to work. At least they can take care of all of their own business. They don't have to adopt kids, and leave 1/2 the household at home to watch the "Flowers In The Attic"... They are more able to avoid welfare than the SSSB couples...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#203261 Jul 17, 2013
Why did Rock Hudson have to change his name? Anyone know?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203262 Jul 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman had been told, by police, to stand down. If he'd stayed in his car we wouldn't have been discussing this. Martin would have been left to his own devices and his future would have unfolded as it should have. I understand the stand your ground approach. Even as an individual with liberal leanings I don't accept the notion that if some nobhead enters my house to steal stuff I am require to roll over belly up and leave if possible. EF that. Enter my home uninvited at your own risk.
However, Zimmerman wasn't defending his home/car/tent/shoebox, he was on neighborhood watch in his car. His duty, IMHO, is to alert the law to suspicious behavior, which he did. He then, against police directive, stuck his nose in where it didn't belong. What happened next is known only by two people, one is dead. Letting Zimmerman off scot free sends the wrong message. But hey ho, that is Florida law in effect. Maybe they'll have a look at the regs involved in neighborhood watch.
It appears Zimmerman does have a history too. It has also come to light that Zimmerman has three prior arrests that were closed, domestic violence, resisting arrest without violence, and resisting arrest with violence (both actually did involve violence). All closed out with no explanation. His father is a retired judge. Am I jumping to conclusions? Of course I am. But not without experience. We've got a trouble making lad around my parts that has no criminal record. He does, however, have a fair few victims. Like Zimmerman, his pop wears a black robe.
Agreed. He should have remained in his car. Any history of violence should have been relevant, in such a high profile case. Pappy/Judge or not.
Maybe, your "trouble making lad" needs to go for a "ride" down Meadow Lane? Teach him that his dad can keep LEGAL consequences away, but not any other type?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203263 Jul 17, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
If Travon Martin didn't tresspass into a gated community he may still be alive today, unless he chose to rob a liquor store, he is a bad little boy with a rap sheet. If you are going to deffend him know the facts so you don't look as stupid as he does or did
Sheesh is pointing out relevant facts, and allowed to make opinions. Stop being churlish and ignorant.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203264 Jul 17, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
I see the stupid joto is back. when i was on top of your momomy last night, she told me that you are the one playing on her computer, changing the locations of posters. You can not hide from Gustavo my friend because your mommy tell me everything ... hehe lol pendejo
Dame cabeza, eh?
LOL
Hehe
Pinche punetas ...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203265 Jul 17, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
Will the real Frankie Rizzo please bend over! your BF Hudson has something "Rock" Hard for you!!! LOL
Pendej*. Maric*n.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203266 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You conveniently left out the part where hoodie repeatedly slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete.
They don't like inconvenient truths. It gets in their way...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203267 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you punch someone in the mouth you might get shot. So don't cry if you do. Don't want to get shot? Don't punch anyone in the mouth. It's a simple concept really. If more people learned it, less people would get shot.
An armed society is a polite society.
He's such an idiot. We have gun laws because babies like him can't be trusted...
Drop China favored status

Monrovia, CA

#203268 Jul 17, 2013
U.S. needs to drop the most favored trading status from the Communist Chinese at once, America needs it's jobs back.

America says Communist China has Spoiled Tech Tariff Talks.
laughing man

UK

#203269 Jul 17, 2013
Tennessee Trash wrote:
Why did Rock Hudson have to change his name? Anyone know?
Because one of you coffee tables ran tattling to the mods.

Old punchline from a littering commercial:

There ain't no lower class

than Tennessee Trash
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203270 Jul 17, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
It does when you attack someone! So that's two mistakes the little boy made.
Third mistake: He brought Skittles to a gunfight...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203271 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what he should have done but he didn't. It got violent. TM ended up dead.
Zimmerman received a very fair trial and was found not guilty of any crime. Accept it.
Poof's just mad, because the judges are smarter than him. He thought that after Prop 8 got overturned, that he and the judges were "bros", equally capable of dispensing law. I'll guarantee that if you were being gay-mugged by Poof and had a gun while he was trying to a$*-r*pe you, he'd get shot, too...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203272 Jul 17, 2013
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
Lil' Tray-table was a streetpunk who got what he deserved.
It's my GUESS that Trayvon was the one who escalated it. Young-uns are usually the ones to overreact. With age,(usually) comes wisdom.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203273 Jul 17, 2013
Spooled wrote:
Someone unspooled Frankie, then wound up his rubber band.
Out of control idiot slapping his Johnson around on this web site.
Put a cork in it Frankie and go away!
EMO says what?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203274 Jul 17, 2013
Spool wrote:
It's more like screech!
Your just a spool.
Sorry, jack-ass, but sheesh is speaking more sensibly than you. Deal with it.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203275 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Like your troll posts?
at its most basic essence marriage is a legal contract recognized by local government
A troll is someone that attacks the messenger letting you know that Same sex marriage is legal, recognized on both the state and federal level.
Sterility is moot as the ability or intent to have children has never ever been a requirement for a marriage
No. At its most basic essence, it's a union of 1 man, 1 woman. At it's most LEGAL essence, it's a contract. Semantic manipulation. Shameful.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203276 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen troll
You don’t get to define my marriage, or anyone else’s. Your opinion is totally worthless
A marriage is a legal contract, recognized by our government and laws.
Same sex couples are legally married and recognized on the state and federal level.
You don’t get to define their mirages either, you are not that important.
You can define your own, but that is where it stops
Hey! D got something right! SSM is a mirage.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203277 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't played dumb at all. That would be you dear. You're the one presenting non-existent statistics and "facts", not me. Don't get all bent out of shape because I'm able to call you on your intentional deceitfulness.
<quoted text>
No honeypie, only the fundamentalists (who are a very small faction of society) agree with you, and no one really gives a rat's ass what those people think about anything. They are hypocritical liars like yourself.
<quoted text>
No hon, it isn't. That's why no child health experts agree with your completely unfounded and unsupported statement. I'm quite sure that those experts would just think your an angry c*nt like I do.
Smile!
<quoted text>
No dear, actually the "woman" recognized what wonderful parents we would be and went out of her way to volunteer her time before we ever thought of asking. And my husband and I DO have a child, two actually. Not a damn thing you can do about it but continue to be a raving bitch and stomping your feet and pouting.
Smile c*nt!
<quoted text>
Would you like some cheese to go with your whine hon?
<quoted text>
I'm sure you are. But I have no problem looking them in the eye. I also have no problem using posts like yours to demonstrate to them the utter ugliness, hypocrisy and pure lunacy of fundamentalist Christians.
Thank you for being such an ugly c*nt.
Interesting. You claim that you and your..."man" had babies, without heterosexual involvement, and get called on it. After squirming, you make all sorts of noise, and then end up claiming that a woman was involved. Making it a heterosexual coupling. Which was the basis of your original lie. Your intentional deceitfulness. Not his. You get to call NOTHING, you lying sack of shyte.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#203278 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The authors of this study are looking at the evolutionary process of determining a mate for the purposes of reproduction.
This is not a study that looks at “marriage”, which is a legal union that ties people together.
Just because the first paragraph mentions “marriage”, it is not a discussion about marriage. In fact, the authors specifically use the words “mating relationships”; which, as we know, not all marriages are “mating relationships”.
Now you may say I’m splitting hairs, but in the opening paragraph, did you happen to notice how the authors define marriages as being “usually” regarded as formal reproductive alliances? Another way of saying this would be “While some marriages are ‘usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances’, NOT ALL marriages are defined in this manner.”
I think this is an important distinction; one that cannot be overlooked.
Next, this article is focused exclusively on heterosexual RELATIONSHPS (not marriage) that are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of reproducing.
It doesn’t touch on those relationships in which couples make the conscious and mutually agreed upon decision that they will not reproduce.
As I’ve pointed out to you time and again, the numbers of married couples who are choosing NOT to have children has been increasing over the past few decades. This article doesn’t not address it and therefore does not ask or answer the question “why?”
Another problem with this article is that it does not examine homosexual relationships (long-term or short-term) at all.
Obviously same-sex relationships exist. They’ve always existed.
But since this is an article about the evolutionary processes involved with regards to opposite-gender couples in determining who to mate with; and NOT an article about marriage; the authors don’t spend time talking about gays.
Their... y is not discussed by the authors, their exclusion of the subject CANNOT be viewed as an endorsement that marriage MUST BE reserved for opposite-gender relationships only.
Lastly, I did a search on David M. Buss, just to see what he has to say about homosexuality. One of his “theories” is that some men “choose” homosexuality because they are unattractive to women.
We know that homosexuality is not a choice. That’s stupid. Even the most homely straight man could not—would not—“choose” to become gay.
And all that David Schmitt has to say about gay men is that they, like heterosexual men, enjoy having more sexual partners than gay and straight women.
Here’s the bottom line, you total rube; the article you cite is not about marriage. It’s about mating and how it MAY have evolved over the millennia. Since it does not examine heterosexual relationships in which couples consciously decide to forgo having children and since there is no discussion at all about homosexual relationships, you CANNOT conclude that this article in ANY WAY supports the belief that marriage should be confined to opposite-gender couples.
Perhaps you should read beyond the first paragraph of an article before you decide to throw it around as proof-positive for your notions.
Here is the bottom line.

In the first paragraph, they verified my concise statement; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

As to the rest of the content, I knew exactly where it went. As I noted with my first reference, I have chosen brief summaries that prove my statement.

You should take note of the practice of 'briefness'...

Again, you can find that statement in other articles regarding marriage and mating behavior.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203279 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they both weren't. I easily demonstrated that.
<quoted text>
No pretending was necessary. I was gay through the entire process of having children.
And I stopped pretending to be hetero around the age of 16 when I realized that ugly people like you have big mouths, but don't at all represent the normal people of society. You're a coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Smile.
No, you demonstrated nothing, except poor lies. You're the coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.

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.

Templeton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No Pot in SLO - SLO Pot SUCKS!!!!!!! 7 hr WashingtonChilds 1
Cooks Smoking Crack Drinking at Vieni Vai Resta... 7 hr WashingtonChilds 1
Visiting San Luis Obispo (SHOCKER) not a good p... 7 hr Abel the Dirty Me... 4
San Luis Tribuene is no longer a NEWS source 7 hr X Shareholder 12
DEA Drug Raids in SLO 7 hr Abel the Dirty Me... 6
CCGI SLONET SBRNET Corruption doing well in SLO Sun Jeffrey 5
Cocaine, Heroin and Meth in San Luis Obispo-Gan... Sun No Integrity 19
Templeton Dating
Find my Match

Templeton Jobs

Templeton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Templeton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Templeton

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]