Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 8,336)

Showing posts 166,701 - 166,720 of199,080
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190877
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh....Rosie.... I knew you'd talk to me again. The issue is how is marriage defined. Men and women are different, and thus are treated different when the situation warrants it. Marriage has a distinct, cultural, historic, traditional, legal, and/or religious meaning throughout time and place as a union of a man and a wife or man and several wives. Your argument seems to be no restriction, except possible number of participants, among consenting adults. If that is so, why bother licensing marriage at all?

Look, this is a simple equal rights issue.
A man has the right to marry a woman, so a woman should have the same right.
A woman should have the same right a man does, the right to marry a woman.
Can you give me a reason that should not be the case?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190878
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that were true, it would be a non issue. You are appealing to tradition.
You are a self described monster.
Do you hate god for making such a big mistake in your creation?
If not, why not?
:)
<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Monsters with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190879
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Every couple is different from every other couple.
And since you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, sterility is a non issue.
You are beyond stupid.
You feel our rights should be based on our genes.
Should you be allowed to marry?
You have both sets of genes.
Do you think god hates you, and that's why he made such a big mistake while creating you? LOL!
No Rosie the right is based on the relationship society wishes to privilege and recognize, that is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 plus states. If the state chooses not to recognize any relationship, does the right still exist?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190880
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
167K or so posts later, still not one rational argument against gay marriage.
And now:
"Rhode Island joins New England states in legalizing gay marriage"
http://pbn.com/Rhode-Island-joins-New-England...
You want this major social change, then the burden is in you to give us rational arguments why. The burden is not on us the tell you why not, dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190881
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Every couple is different from every other couple.
And since you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, sterility is a non issue.
You are beyond stupid.
You feel our rights should be based on our genes.
Should you be allowed to marry?
You have both sets of genes.
Do you think god hates you, and that's why he made such a big mistake while creating you? LOL!
If sterility is a "non issue", then why can't I marry my sister?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190882
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/100...

Justice Kennedy's 40,000 Children
by Robert Oscar Lopez
within Constitutional Law, Marriage

May 2nd, 2013

During oral arguments on Prop 8, Justice Kennedy alluded to the views of children of same-sex couples as if their desires and concerns are identical to and uncritical of their parents’ decisions. But the reality is far more complicated.

**********
During the oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples. Since I was one of those children—from ages 2-19, I was raised by a lesbian mother with the help of her partner—I was curious to see what he would say.

I also eagerly anticipated what he would say because I had taken great professional and social risk to file an amicus brief with Doug Mainwaring (who is gay and opposes gay marriage), in which we explained that children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them.

Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns.

I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting.

Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.

I have heard of the supposed “consensus” on the soundness of same-sex parenting from pediatricians and psychologists, but that consensus is frankly bogus.

Pediatricians are supposed to make sure kids don’t get ringworm or skip out on vaccinations—nobody I know doubts that same-sex couples are able to tend to such basic childcare needs.

Psychologists come from the same field that used to have a “consensus” that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Neither field is equipped to answer the deeper existential dilemmas of legally removing fatherhood or motherhood as a human principle, which is what total “marriage equality” would entail.

I support same-sex civil unions and foster care, but I have always resisted the idea that government should encourage same-sex couples to imagine that their partnerships are indistinguishable from actual marriages. Such a self-definition for gays would be based on a lie, and anything based on a lie will backfire.

The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say,“We deserve to have kids more than they do!”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190883
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.
It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.
It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership.
Lastly, it’s harmful to everyone if gay men and lesbians in mixed-orientation marriages with children file for divorce so they can enter same-sex couplings and raise their children with a new homosexual partner while kicking aside the other biological parent. Kids generally want their mom and dad to stop fighting, put aside their differences, and stay together, even if one of them is gay.
In my family’s case, my mother was divorced and she made the best decision given our circumstances. Had she set out to create a same-sex parenting family in a premeditated fashion, I would probably not feel at peace with her memory, because I would know that my lack of a strong father figure during childhood did not result from an accident of life history, but rather from her own careless desire to have her cake and eat it too. I am blessed not to contend with such a traumatic thought about my own mother. I love her because I know she did everything possible to give me a good life. Still, what was best in our specific circumstances was a state of deprivation that it is unconscionable to force on innocent children if it’s not absolutely necessary.
Justice Kennedy alluded to the views of children being raised by same-sex couples as if our desires and concerns are identical to and uncritical of the decisions made by our parents. The reality is far more complicated than that.
Putting aside all the historical analogies to civil rights and the sentimental platitudes about love, the fact is that same-sex parenting suffers from insurmountable logistical problems for which children pay the steepest lifelong price.
Whether it’s by surrogacy, insemination, divorce, or commercialized adoption, moral hazards abound for same-sex couples who insist on replicating a heterosexual model of parenthood. The children thrown into the middle of these moral hazards are well aware of their parents’ role in creating a stressful and emotionally complicated life for kids, which alienates them from cultural traditions like Father's Day and Mother's Day, and places them in the unenviable position of being called “homophobes” if they simply suffer the natural stress that their parents foisted on them—and admit to it.
Same-sex marriage would pose no problems for me if it were simply about couples being together. As a bisexual I get that. But unfortunately the LGBT movement decided that its validation by others requires a redefinition of “marriage” to include same-sex partnerships. So here we are, stuck having to encourage problematic lives for children in order to affirm same-sex couples the way the movement demands.
That’s why I am for civil unions but not for redefining marriage. But I suppose I don’t count—I am no doctor, judge, or television commentator, just a kid who had to clean up the mess left behind by the sexual revolution.
Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190884
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No Rosie the right is based on the relationship society wishes to privilege and recognize, that is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 plus states. If the state chooses not to recognize any relationship, does the right still exist?
Yep.
BTW:
"Rhode Island joins New England states in legalizing gay marriage"
http://pbn.com/Rhode-Island-joins-New-England...
At some point, you homophobes are just going to have to accept the fact this train has done left the station.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190885
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, this is a simple equal rights issue.
A man has the right to marry a woman, so a woman should have the same right.
A woman should have the same right a man does, the right to marry a woman.
Can you give me a reason that should not be the case?
It's a simple definitional issue.....how is marriage defined. Men and women are different, and thus are treated different when the situation warrants it. Marriage has a distinct, cultural, historic, traditional, legal, and/or religious meaning throughout time and place as a union of a man and a wife or man and several wives.

If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?

Your argument seems to be no restriction, except possible number of participants, among consenting adults.

If that is so, why bother licensing marriage at all?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190886
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple definitional issue.....how is marriage defined. Men and women are different, and thus are treated different when the situation warrants it.
How, exactly, are men and women different, other than body parts?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage has a distinct, cultural, historic, traditional, legal, and/or religious meaning throughout time and place as a union of a man and a wife or man and several wives.
Appealing to tradition.
Logical fallacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?
Your argument seems to be no restriction, except possible number of participants, among consenting adults.
If that is so, why bother licensing marriage at all?
You make no sense.
Anchors

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190887
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Give way swabby.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190888
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How, exactly, are men and women different, other than body parts?
<quoted text>
Appealing to tradition.
Logical fallacy.
<quoted text>
You make no sense.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190890
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, a two-fer.
So, what did your family and friends say?

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190891
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not being honest.
-The point is not about feelings, it is about distortion.
-Where have I said being a mutation makes me less valid? Nor is the mutation my fault. It happens to make me distinct. And an incredible curiosity. I find that a positive extremely often.
-You can 'say' homosexuality has any reason for existence. Only some are true. See the difference?
-Ss couples cannot 'have' children. Do you see what your denial is trying to equate?
-Yes, the law is a part of reality. But no, if the law denies reality, reality doesn't change. The reality is, the law is simple wrong.
Do you feel a 'haunting' now?
<quoted text>
I listed point by point corrections to your statements.
Words have specific meaning for a reason. You seem to think that specificity is only necessary with things and not people. I disagree.
Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.

Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190893
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Kimare'a wrote;

Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.
Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.

I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.

Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.

I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.

Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.

At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.

The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.

Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190894
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
Kimare'a wrote;
<quoted text>
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.
I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.
Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.
I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.
Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.
At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.
The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.
Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...
Smile.
Ok, I'm not disagreeing that marriage has come about because of mating behaviour. It has become more than that. Although love/companionship are part of other relationships many people feel it is the essence of their reason for marrying; to make a commitment to themselves in front of everyone. In one way I do see your point about the duality of nature, the universe. Then this applies to any hetero relationship (except perhaps any of ours). At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal formality, a piece of paper contract. It is not something unto itself. Isn't it a tad sentimental in lamenting a change in marriage? The union of two genders will still be that for those two involved. A pagan ceremony celebrating such duality calls itself a marriage without requiring a piece of paper. I know what that thought leads to, why can't SS do something similar... but like I said the other day, it was tried with 'civil partnerships' and a mistake (IMO) was made in not allowing the same legal rights and recognitions within that, so the GLB have gone all out for equal marriage rights. If it's what they want, and it isn't going to directly change any individual's marriage (wording will not change that couple, will it) then why not. Like I said it's a legality. The celebration of duality of two sexes will still apply to that couple and can be pronounced/affirmed within the ceremony/vows.
I didn't mean to avoid the issue of 'equating', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. If it's the gender thing, then like I already said, each person has aspects of both in themselves and in the relationship. And even opposite sex couples often have aspects of the same. If I were to equate the two types of marriage, then I'd equate on the basis of the relationship and on love. Of course reproduction wise they can't be the same. They are equal in love and each person feeling that they've found their other half. You may say not because of the duality, but there is more to love than gender. Love is genderless as are soulmates. Gender is the mind and the body, not the essence of a person, their soul if you like.
The amoeba, the alpha, and the ?, the omega. Some say the world is becoming genderless, the distinctions blurring; and with hormones in the food chain. An eventual return to the start, like the universe that expanded contracts back again, or God being both the beginning and the end. Ok, I'm well into off topic drivel mode. Way too much coffee this morning.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190896
May 4, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190897
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I'm not disagreeing that marriage has come about because of mating behaviour. It has become more than that. Although love/companionship are part of other relationships many people feel it is the essence of their reason for marrying; to make a commitment to themselves in front of everyone. In one way I do see your point about the duality of nature, the universe. Then this applies to any hetero relationship (except perhaps any of ours). At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal formality, a piece of paper contract. It is not something unto itself. Isn't it a tad sentimental in lamenting a change in marriage? The union of two genders will still be that for those two involved. A pagan ceremony celebrating such duality calls itself a marriage without requiring a piece of paper. I know what that thought leads to, why can't SS do something similar... but like I said the other day, it was tried with 'civil partnerships' and a mistake (IMO) was made in not allowing the same legal rights and recognitions within that, so the GLB have gone all out for equal marriage rights. If it's what they want, and it isn't going to directly change any individual's marriage (wording will not change that couple, will it) then why not. Like I said it's a legality. The celebration of duality of two sexes will still apply to that couple and can be pronounced/affirmed within the ceremony/vows.
I didn't mean to avoid the issue of 'equating', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. If it's the gender thing, then like I already said, each person has aspects of both in themselves and in the relationship. And even opposite sex couples often have aspects of the same. If I were to equate the two types of marriage, then I'd equate on the basis of the relationship and on love. Of course reproduction wise they can't be the same. They are equal in love and each person feeling that they've found their other half. You may say not because of the duality, but there is more to love than gender. Love is genderless as are soulmates. Gender is the mind and the body, not the essence of a person, their soul if you like.
The amoeba, the alpha, and the ?, the omega. Some say the world is becoming genderless, the distinctions blurring; and with hormones in the food chain. An eventual return to the start, like the universe that expanded contracts back again, or God being both the beginning and the end. Ok, I'm well into off topic drivel mode. Way too much coffee this morning.
Too wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190898
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people would say that being a pathological liar in order to obtain a sanity certificate doesn't make you smart, it just makes you a liar.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Spill Over

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190899
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rissio, your back order of "DEPENDS" have arrived.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,701 - 166,720 of199,080
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Palo Alto Discussions

Search the Palo Alto Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 18 hr Activity 15,657
Massive Octopus kite at Shoreline (Jun '08) Thu Charlie 5
Review: Calvary Chapel (Apr '09) Tue Matthew Perri 27
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Tue Bag itts 4,551
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Apr 15 lug heads 7,298
CA Who do you support for Governor in California i... (Oct '10) Apr 13 Just fine 3,746
Naked Teenage Man Arrested For Bizarre Crime Sp... Apr 11 justaguess 18
•••
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
Palo Alto Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••