Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,446

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188814 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if someone used your unfunny stupid space alien schtick against same sex marriage. You would scream bloody murder.
Why do you think it's so brilliant when you use it against other forms of marriage that you don't approve of?
Nope I would just laugh

I am not against other forms of marriage, you are

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#188815 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your position that denying equal protection is OK if granting it would be too complicated?
i'm not sure it would be equal protection. are people naturally attracted to more than one person? no, no they are not.

this is a religious choice in almost every single case. they can perform whatever rite they wish in their tax subsidized house of worship...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#188816 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong again, I would vote in favor of Poly, but don’t expect it to actually come up in a serious way in the near future.
I am curious, have you ever been right about anything... ever?
i haven't seen it.

think he'll be able to put up a copy of even one correct post he's made? i'd put up a few bucks against...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#188817 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I don’t believe in them, but there are those that do, and their rights are being infringed too :)
I have not contacted any sheep herders yet, but I assume they will be open to joining you Poly folks.
( Kidding aside, I am occasionally asked to go to a classroom and talk about amateur astronomy, after my little talk and presentation of different kinds of telescopes it is question and answer time, every time with young folks I get the same question… do you believe in UFO’s, so I toss a rocket engine part in the air and ask if any of them knows what that was… they say no of course, and so I reply of course there are things flying that we don’t know what they are… yet.. which is all a UFO is.
This is immediately followed with the question “do I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere”? which I immediately say Yes I do, with the number of stars and the frequency we are finding planets it is almost a foregone conclusion that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe… however, I have seen no convincing evidence whatsoever that any of them have ever been here.)
what are your thoughts on the possibility of us being the most technologically advanced beings around?

most people i talk to seem to have it set n their minds that other life would have to be more advanced than us.

if we orbit a third generations star, and it took that long for the heavier elements to be cooked up in previous stars that they could be accreted in such levels on our planet for us to mine and use, perhaps we are the first, or one of the first, to develop on a planet able to support such technological developement?(assuming it would take those heavier elements to make the trappings of a technologically advanced civilization...the exception of Douglas Adams' huvaloos granted..)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188818 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope I would just laugh
I am not against other forms of marriage, you are
Oy vey. The old tired and stupid Big D "Frankie's a liar" Straw man AGAIN?

It was stupid the first 50 times, it's not getting any smarter.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188819 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i'm not sure it would be equal protection. are people naturally attracted to more than one person? no, no they are not.
this is a religious choice in almost every single case. they can perform whatever rite they wish in their tax subsidized house of worship...
So now you speak for polyamorists and your message is that they don't exist?

Same sex marriage advocates can also perform any rite they wish.

What harm would a marriage of three consenting adult men cause you bigot?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188820 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what are your thoughts on the possibility of us being the most technologically advanced beings around?
most people i talk to seem to have it set n their minds that other life would have to be more advanced than us.
if we orbit a third generations star, and it took that long for the heavier elements to be cooked up in previous stars that they could be accreted in such levels on our planet for us to mine and use, perhaps we are the first, or one of the first, to develop on a planet able to support such technological developement?(assuming it would take those heavier elements to make the trappings of a technologically advanced civilization...the exception of Douglas Adams' huvaloos granted..)
If they have traveled here to Earth, they are more technologically advanced that we are.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188821 Apr 16, 2013
Warning! Ticks have been spotted on this thread. Please practice tick safety!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188822 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i haven't seen it.
think he'll be able to put up a copy of even one correct post he's made? i'd put up a few bucks against...
I haven't seen one "correct post" from you tick guy.

What's a "correct post" anyway? One against marriage equality?
FullTilt

Covina, CA

#188823 Apr 16, 2013
Full Tilt, sounds more like the methods used to run the city of Glendora, California ever since Chris Jeffers and his hoodlum friends took over.

But back to the good news, another CROOK has been exposed living and running a illegal enterprise in Glendora, California.

Enterprise is the same word used by Glendora's local government officials? Wonder if long time resident and fugitive Raymond Bitar helped frame the financial RICO business plan?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188825 Apr 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
He had no legitimate basis to rule otherwise regarding gays using the Olympic name. That was proven by the SCOTUS decision.
Please tell me where I have lied or distorted any of the core issues. Even if it were true, it does not excuse the behavior for anyone. Again, why is that necessary for any legitimate cause.
History shows that often decisions violate common sense and just decisions. Nothing changes the fact that ss couples do not equate to marriage at any level. Even a SCOTUS decision cannot change that.
Smile.
he didn't make a ruling since he was an attorney in the case. try doing a little research about the guy before you make a statement.

you distort in virtually every posting you make. when you treat someone poorly or with a snide comment, as you do here regularly, expect the same in return. you get what you give. i learned that early in life - and my kids already have done so as well (the youngest being in elementary school).

you comment "Nothing changes the fact that ss couples do not equate to marriage at any level." is merely your opinion. you're entitled to it. however, it does not drive the law nor does it drive what the judges have found and will further support in SCOTUS' findings. most likely, i suspect you'll continue to hold that opinion for as long as you live. fine. i get that. but understand that your opinion won't influence any same sex couple away from getting married if that's what they want to do and can. it'll just be you filled with those negative feelings and the repercussions thereof. everyone else will go on with their lives.

good luck.
Cat Purrs

London, UK

#188826 Apr 16, 2013
R1 works for Topix
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188827 Apr 16, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
R1 works for Topix
Don't tell Bill or Jizzy! It will break their hearts. And send them into a tail spin of angst.
Medium Tex

United States

#188828 Apr 16, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
R1 works for Topix
Yup, and he got the registered Cat Purrs account deleted.

WOO HOO!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188829 Apr 16, 2013
Medium Tex wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, and he got the registered Cat Purrs account deleted.
WOO HOO!!!
Thanks R1!

Please banish that silly jackass "just the facts"!

And give Big D many bad judge-its, then banish his dopey ass too!

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#188830 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen one "correct post" from you tick guy.
What's a "correct post" anyway? One against marriage equality?
one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.

why?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#188831 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your position that denying equal protection is OK if granting it would be too complicated?
it would show that it is not a logical conclusion that legalizing SSm would mean we have to legalize polygamous marriage.

logic is fun!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188832 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.
why?
Because I support same sex marriage. Duh.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188833 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure Big D, you would vote for poly despite the fact that you ridicule it with silly space alien and marry your goat schtick every chance you get.
We believe you.
I am not ridiculing poly, I am ridiculing you and your stupid arguments against same sex marriage trying ( and failing ) using things you are not actually even personally interested in.

Not laughing at Poly... laughing at you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188834 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it would show that it is not a logical conclusion that legalizing SSm would mean we have to legalize polygamous marriage.
logic is fun!
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Logic is brutal!

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Racial profiling by Facebook against Natives, w... 11 hr ghostdancer1890 1
Awful humming/thrumming sound in the middle of ... (Jun '12) 23 hr Suzette 37
Downtown North Wed ralph 1
UPDATE 1-Vivus says erectile dysfunction drug m... (Sep '12) Tue joshjonhson 20
Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14) Mar 2 andrewharas 100
Long Beacha s middle class, then ... and now Mar 1 Lucy 4
Moderators why have i been shadow banned? (Jun '14) Feb 27 Fracking Doodooda 4

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:18 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:18PM
How Does Darnell Dockett Signing Impact 49ers' Offseason Plans?
ESPN 4:58 PM
49ers sign WR Simpson to two-year deal
Bleacher Report 5:10 PM
Aldon Smith, 49ers Restructure Contract: Latest Details, Comments and Reaction
Yahoo! Sports 5:57 PM
Jones-Drew retires from NFL
ESPN 6:22 PM
49ers OL Smith converts salary into bonuses