Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,939

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199352 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...You don't annoy us cur...
He says, extremely annoyed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199353 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you fool, I'm with you so far. You are pretending that the production of babies is a requirement of marriage. Carry on....
Let's see what I wrote:
"Really Joh-née? Is biology mandated? Is conception mandated, or does it happen when men AND women have sex. You really should work on fretting your G.E.D. Let's keep this simple. Sex makes babies, even ones who grow up and post on Internet forum sites under the name "Jonah1". Human societies throughout history have understood this. Marriage developed as a means of regulating that. Are you with me so far?
Hmmmmmmm.....no use of the word "requirement", but thanks for the dishonesty.
And now you are trying to pretend that historical context has some relevance in civil law. You would be mistaken. Again.
Hmmmmmm...and just want is same sex marriage based on? The deep historical cultural practice of the union of two men, or two women, recognized as "marriage".......oh no no nooooooooo....it's based on the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The legal, historical, cultural, social, and/or religious understanding of that. Yeah...that's the context!
There is no procreation mandate to be married. You blather on for days about children, but it will always be blathering. The production of children is not a mandate of marriage. Never has been, never will be.
You're just on a dishonesty roll here....you go girl. What other lies have you got? This may sound radical, but the state expects, not mandates, a husband and wife, to consummate the marriage, and engage in "marital relations". Do you know hat happens when that happens? Babies are sometimes made, even you Joh-née. You were a baby once....right? Or did the stork bring you, or maybe it was one of those rainbow colored parrots. Yeah.....that's it.]
Maybe you should get back on your "several marriages" equals "one marriage" routine, cause you're sucking at this one!!
Ohhhhhhh....you say the sweetest things. Are you saying you support polygyny?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199354 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And that pronouncement was based on a deep seated historical, cultural, legal, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of......? What exactly? What is the understanding and/or expectation of the pronouncement "....you are now legally married" uttered to tow men, or women?
<quoted text>
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
<quoted text>
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
No doubt. Even though Jonah1 is a male and therefore a "husband" he sure acts like a wife!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199355 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sowing discord.
Enjoy hell you hypocritical POS!!!
Smile!!
Whoa, wait a minute. You believe there is a hell?

chuckle. snort.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199356 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
...Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence
Nah, they're glad the angry little malcontent is not there.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199357 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiotic opinion. Oh, but please do let us know when sterility is a mandate of marriage, ok hon?!!!
Please let us know who said it was.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199358 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you fool, I'm with you so far. You are pretending that the production of babies is a requirement of marriage. Carry on....
When did he do that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199359 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it help if I got out some crayons and drew some pictures for you Pietro?
That would help me understand why you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. Please do it, thanks fruitcake.
Forestall

Monrovia, CA

#199360 Jul 1, 2013
Finally 2 LAUSD officials demoted, principal leaves over handling of sex-abuse complaints.

They should have been beaten and then stripped clean of their retirements.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199361 Jul 1, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you who lacks a basis in reality, because we all know that 3 is greater than 2. Glad we covered that. You keep posting that 3 is greater than 2. We know this, thank you for focusing on details. Now, which rights do the polygamists, or even bigamists for that matter, seek that are not available to standard couples? You keep posting that 3 is gretater than 2. We know that 3 is greater than 2. You do not need to keep posting that 3 is greater than 2. We know that 3 is greater than 2. Since we know that 3 is greater than 2, we do not need to be told that 3 is greater than 2. We agree that the number of spouses is the focus of your delirious postings about how 3 is greater than 2. We are not arguing that 3 is less than 2. The number of rights is your focus, and you have yet to address that fact.
lides is very proud he finally understands a little arithmetic and he's just showing off. He'll calm down soon maybe.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199362 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And that pronouncement was based on a deep seated historical, cultural, legal, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of......? What exactly? What is the understanding and/or expectation of the pronouncement "....you are now legally married" uttered to tow men, or women?
<quoted text>
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
<quoted text>
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
Stop being daft and accept the ruling of the justices. They clearly said that in those states that allowed same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian partners were being treated as "second-class citizens".

Referring to them ass "second-class citizens" was the ONLY difference they made between a union of a man and wife and a union of man/man, woman/woman.

In marriages where both genders are present, both are referred to as "spouses", just as in a marriage composed of a man and woman. However, you can call both men "husbands" or both women "wives", if that pleases you.

You obviously detest this ruling. You obviously have no respect for same-gender partners who are married.

That puts you firmly on the wrong side of this issue and on the wrong side of the way history will see this decision.

You probably didn't wake up this morning with the understanding that future generations will see you and your kind the same way we see past segregationists and racial bigots.

Look at what's happening to Paula Deen. 40 years ago she could have said the "N-word" as much as she wanted without suffering any kind of fallout. Today, she admitted to once using the word and her business world is falling apart around her.

That's how quickly things can change.

As I've said to Kimare, "Either get on board, or get out of the way."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199363 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no dear, the state isn't interested in any of these things. They are only important to fundies like yourself.
The state isn't interested in the social or legal aspects of marriage? Than why are we here?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199364 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...(long angry rant deleted for brevity)...bla bla bla...Do have a nice day.
You too fruitcake!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199365 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The ruling was bogus? Really? According to whom? You?!!! LOL!
The ruling stands. Not a damned thing you can do about it.
Smile!
<quoted text>
You don't annoy us cur. You exemplify the reason we don't accept 2nd status handouts. It's because of the efforts of bigots like yourself that we smile as we continue our civil journey. Watching as you bitch and moan every time we advance is hilarious!!
It started with one country, now we have 15. It started with one state, now we have 13 and DC. And what do your ilk do? They piss and moan about how its not real!!!! They quote the losers!!! They try and intentionally agitate and sow discord. Know why? Cause they got NOTHING!!!
But you keep trying to convince yourself that you are annoying us!!! Your need for self importance is hilarious!!!
BTW, acknowledging that you think you are annoying us verifies the intent of your "stating facts". The intent is to sow discord. Your god HATES your behavior. Enjoy hell KiMMy!!
Smile!
It's wrong to state facts because they annoy you???

You mean like, the SCOTUS ruling still hasn't changed the distinctions between your relationship and marriage?

Anyone with eyes can see something is wrong! Especially the children.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199366 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
... Hey, why don't you and Rizzo start in on that polygamy routine instead. That one's always a hoot.
That's what they said about same sex marriage just a few short years ago and look at you now! Congratulations.

Don't cry, poly won't hurt you. If it were legal it would still be so rare you'll probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. It is not "a hoot" it is marriage and good people are being denied it, just like you used to be.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199367 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you stupid moron, they declared us legally married. You see Pietro, with a marriage of same gender couples, there won't be both a "husband and wife". Anyone past the age of 9 would know this already. They also didn't declare us "right handed and left handed". They also didn't declare us "Caucasion and Hispanic". The only thing the state declared is that we are now legally married.
Are there any other completely ridiculous questions you'd like to ask dear, in order to continue showing off what a complete idiot you are?
Do let me know.
I don't know why he asked the question, anyone with eyes can see you are the wife!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199368 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, dear, you never stated that. you simply "imply" it ad nausea. That's why all your posts are so easily dismissed.
<quoted text>
Um, no, not always. They most certainly are NOT always the result of mating behavior.
But since you brought it up, what mating behaviors are mandated for those that marry?
Please, do present more of your fundie twirling!!
<quoted text>
Nope, the idiot has been exposed as YOU.
Let us know when mating behaviors and procreation are mandated. Until then, we'll just sit back and laugh hysterically every time you insinuate they are!!!!
BTW, Betty White would be so please to know that you don't accept her marriage as real!! Oh, let's face facts. Betty White doesn't give a horse's patoot about your opinion of her marriage!! Just like everyone else doesn't!!!
Smile!!
You are the only one claiming anything is or is not mandated I simply note natures results. Marriage results in children, SS relationships never do.

Oh, and there is nothing you can do about it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199369 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sowing discord.
Enjoy hell you hypocritical POS!!!
Smile!!
Interesting.

You deny reality, but claim the ability to judge for God.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199370 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiotic opinion. Oh, but please do let us know when sterility is a mandate of marriage, ok hon?!!!
<quoted text>
Nope, another incorrect opinion. The definition of mating has been presented, and there is NOTHING that presents gay mating as a defective or failed. Not one damn thing! But please KiMare, do continue lying for your Jesus!!
<quoted text>
Anal sex is NOT inherently harmful, it is NOT unhealthy, nor is it demeaning. You can present no evidence to support these opinions.
But your obsession with anal sex says much more about you then it does the millions and millions that engage in it.
Don't like it? Don't engage in it. But your thoughts on the matter are completely irrelevant. This discussion isn't about mating or types of sex. It's about the institution of marriage. Do try and keep up you old biddy.
<quoted text>
No dear, that would be you. No one is filled with more BS in this forum then you. Your ridiculous and repetitive talking points have been proven wrong repeatedly. But like the bleating jackass you are, you simply put on your ignorance shades and start the whole process all over again, hoping that you will garner a different outcome. There's a word for people that do the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. The word is "IDIOT".
<quoted text>
Um, you didn't present any facts. You merely brought all your twirling points to the table. SCOTUS wasn't there to present an opinion or ruling about anal sex. SCOTUS wasn't there to make an opinion or ruling about sterility. SCOTUS was there to rule on an issue about marriage. And that's what they did. The fact that you don't accept their ruling is completely irrelevant.
But don't let the fact that your stupid posts get you bitch-slapped on a daily basis prevent you from continuing to post your stupid fundie talking points. Repetition is the tool of idiots. Carry on plebe.
Sad, even scary angry denial.

I seriously think you need help.
Toon time

Monrovia, CA

#199371 Jul 1, 2013
It' "toon time" looks like the Mormon whackers of prop 8. just can't take a good beating in the USA Supreme Court, June 2013 - get over it sicko's.

If you don't like it you can take your Multi-wife families back to UTAH or better yet Mexico.

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
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 2 hr William Knight 2
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr subscibe 15,995
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr lollypop 5,068
Why some high-tech parents want low-tech kids 11 hr Ray Ban 1
US stocks start lower 12 hr Go Blue Forever 22
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Mon GOP bull 2,265
Camden, TN. Topix Moderator (Aug '13) Sep 13 ladybee 16
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••