Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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
CoverUP

Monrovia, CA

#197802 Jun 25, 2013
More bull is being posted on this SITE than ever before. Mostly from outside competing interests and or inside political ding-bats.

Take the two screw-ups from Glendora, California - Deborah Neal and Deborah Wilson two fouled up hand lickers doing the biding of their male master in City Hall.

These two don't have an original thought between them at all, a couple of supporter's on the Glendora city council, Judy Nelson, Joseph Santoro, Gene Murabito, Douglas Tessitor but the one that's lost in the dark and afraid of her own shadow is Karen Davis.

But like THEIR MASTER'S they have sold there SOUL to the DEVIL.

While the two Deborah's are operating under the protection of the GPD and city hall it still doesn't protect them from public opinion and GOD.

Like there master's who have NO trouble stepping on and over Children, Senior citizen's and alike.
Committing crimes against them is nothing new and all for a seat at the devils table.

Deborah Deal runs towards and walking away with the police chief is a sad story to see and tell.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#197803 Jun 25, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Well , being " fat" is either a choice, or can be inherited. You can go on a diet, exercise and become thin. How do you stop being a homosexual. And I am not talking about a sexual act.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics...
Genetics do decide what the shape of you body will be as well as determining your height and possible risks to your health. If there is a history of obesity in your family, you may have a higher potential for it, but it does not mean that you are doomed to a life of plumpness. The fact is, even though you may have inherited a higher concentration of fat cells from your family gene pool, it is the bad habits that you inherit from them that will contribute more to your weight than your genes.

Glad I could help, now stop blaming your genetics Lazy fat ass!
Trickle

Monrovia, CA

#197805 Jun 25, 2013
June 2013

The Supreme Court says a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced until Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require close federal monitoring of elections.

First on the list is Glendora, California.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197807 Jun 25, 2013
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if being fat is now a 'disease', how come being gay can't be???
It is. It's called AIDS
Tex

Berkeley, CA

#197808 Jun 25, 2013
Obama Boo Boo to gas all gays!
Trickle

Monrovia, CA

#197809 Jun 25, 2013
June 2013

The Supreme Court says a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced until Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require close federal monitoring of elections.

1.) on the list is Glendora, California.

2.) on the list is El Monte, Californ1a.

3.) on the list is Bell, California.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197811 Jun 25, 2013
Zoro wrote:
Hummm, a few posts seem to be missing.
Don't be proud of censorship, Jizzy you moron! Censorship sucks and just proves that you are a loser.

Glad I bother you so much that you resort to dirty tricks. Brings out your true poor character for everyone to marvel at.

Whoop!~Whoop!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#197813 Jun 25, 2013
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be proud of censorship, Jizzy you moron! Censorship sucks and just proves that you are a loser.
Glad I bother you so much that you resort to dirty tricks. Brings out your true poor character for everyone to marvel at.
Whoop!~Whoop!
Actually, it proves that your witless attacks on other users have not gone unnoticed by the moderator, and they further indicate that you have no valid on topic argument, which is why you descend into such infantile rants.

Your off topic, frequently profane, ad hominem attacks speak volumes to your character, or rather your lack thereof.

Congratulations, well played.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197814 Jun 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it proves that your witless attacks on other users have not gone unnoticed by the moderator, and they further indicate that you have no valid on topic argument, which is why you descend into such infantile rants.
Your off topic, frequently profane, ad hominem attacks speak volumes to your character, or rather your lack thereof.
Congratulations, well played.
An off topic ad hominem witless attack from lides, justifying censorship.
Priceless!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197815 Jun 25, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>LOL I did not dump your posts, Admin did that. Hey I don't even report you. Get a clue Frankie, you cant end your posts with jacka$$.
Liar. Why are my posts only censored when you're here Jizzy, you moron? You're too stupid to make it believable, stop trying.

What an imbecile!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197816 Jun 25, 2013
Don't be proud of censorship, Jizzy you big dopey galoot! Censorship sucks and just proves that you are a loser.

Glad I bother you so much that you resort to progressive dirty tricks. Brings out your true poor character for everyone to marvel at.

Whoop!~Whoop! Jizzy. What a loser!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197817 Jun 25, 2013
As I was attempting to discuss yesterday but was loudly shouted down with witless ad hominem attacks, indicating posters with no argument, new Pew Research shows heavy media bias in favor of SSM.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197818 Jun 25, 2013
On same-sex marriage, and on any aspect of gay culture, the Times doesnít practice journalism, but rather publicity. But the Pew study indicates that this is a problem not only at the Times, but across the news media. The problem is that journalists donít see it as a problem, because they cannot imagine that anybody could be against same-sex marriage for any reason other than bigotry, and they donít believe they should be expected to be fair and balanced towards bigots.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197819 Jun 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197821 Jun 25, 2013
I don't care who you are or what you support, censorship sucks. And my posts are no worse than anyone else here.

So you can be proud of someone's dishonesty and dirty tricks or you can accept it for what it is, the tactics of a loser.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#197822 Jun 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
On same-sex marriage, and on any aspect of gay culture, the Times doesnít practice journalism, but rather publicity. But the Pew study indicates that this is a problem not only at the Times, but across the news media. The problem is that journalists donít see it as a problem, because they cannot imagine that anybody could be against same-sex marriage for any reason other than bigotry, and they donít believe they should be expected to be fair and balanced towards bigots.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...
Blah, blah, blah.

The article you cut and paste creates an argument around the fact that there are gays "opposed" to marriage equality. But that sentiment is only reflected in the headline, since that is all most nincompoops like yourself are going to read. The very gay person that this article uses to try and demonstrate the "bias" it is trumping, is very clear, and is quoted as follows, "ďIím not saying that people who want that [marriage] shouldnít have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.Ē

So he is hardly "opposed" to gay marriage. There are lots of straight people that find domestic partnerships or civil unions acceptable for themselves, that doesn't mean they are "opposed" to other straight people marrying.

By the way, your post above includes lots of examples of calling things "problems" but never demonstrating why they have been labeled as such. In other words, your cut and paste demonstrates the very bias it is claiming to be able to demonstrate in others. But then, you were probably too stupid to notice that, given your zeal to try and show how you aren't really a bigot!!!!! But you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197823 Jun 25, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.
The article you cut and paste creates an argument around the fact that there are gays "opposed" to marriage equality. But that sentiment is only reflected in the headline, since that is all most nincompoops like yourself are going to read. The very gay person that this article uses to try and demonstrate the "bias" it is trumping, is very clear, and is quoted as follows, "ďIím not saying that people who want that [marriage] shouldnít have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.Ē
So he is hardly "opposed" to gay marriage. There are lots of straight people that find domestic partnerships or civil unions acceptable for themselves, that doesn't mean they are "opposed" to other straight people marrying.
By the way, your post above includes lots of examples of calling things "problems" but never demonstrating why they have been labeled as such. In other words, your cut and paste demonstrates the very bias it is claiming to be able to demonstrate in others. But then, you were probably too stupid to notice that, given your zeal to try and show how you aren't really a bigot!!!!! But you are.
I support your right to marry your boyfriend sport, no need for all your angry nonsense. Same sex marriage is a reality now, stop worrying and getting angry.

Having said that, Pew Research has found heavy media bias favoring SSM. This is a fact fruitcake. Don't shoot the messenger.

Calm down.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197824 Jun 25, 2013
On same-sex marriage, and on any aspect of gay culture, the media doesnít practice journalism, but rather publicity.

The problem is that liberal journalists donít see it as a problem, because they cannot imagine that anybody could be against same-sex marriage for any reason other than bigotry, and they donít believe they should be expected to be fair and balanced towards bigots.

This is the problem with the liberally biased media on most issues, not just same sex marriage. Any opposition to progressive policies is "bigotry" and therefore worthy of censorship and bias.
jan

Charlottesville, VA

#197825 Jun 25, 2013
So
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197827 Jun 25, 2013
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

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

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
US stocks start lower 43 min Go Blue Forever 43
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) 3 hr abusedmom 108
Topix is Against the First Amendment 4 hr William Knight 10
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 23 hr surfs up 7,955
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Fri scoop 2,273
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••