Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199576 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not u chooch. Race and gender are different characteristics. Marriage is a union of BOTH genders regardless of racial/ethnic combination. A mixed race/ethnic conjugally married couple are still husband and wife.
The ban on interracial marriage was intended to keep the "white race" and non white races from marrying and having mixed race babies. The various non white races could marry among each other. SSM is gender segregation sanctioned by law. Nice comparison, comparing laws against race mixing within marriage, to advocating laws for gender segregation within marriage.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Damn you are stupid!!

1) Sexual orientation is ALSO a characteristic you idiot!!

2) No, marriage is not JUST a union of both genders. It hasn't been restricted as such for over a decade now. It's 2013 stupid. It can be a union of both genders, or a union made up of only one gender.

3) There is no such entity as SSM, so your imaginary gender segregation doesn't exist. Just another of your lame fundie propagandist talking points. Nothing makes you look stupider then when you try and use these ridiculous nonsensical terms.

"gender segregation sanctioned by law"!!!! What a f*cked up tard you are!!! Segregation means that someone is being excluded. Are you trying to imply that there are women that want to be included in the marriage of a gay man and are being excluded??!!!! You are one f*cked up idiot!!! Tell me Pietro, when a straight man asks a straight woman to marry him, based on your terminology, he is...at that moment, segregating every other straight woman from his marriage. Hurry quick, you better address this "segregation". It's rampant!!!!!!!

Damn you are stupid.

3) If you are going to state that laws against inter-racial marriages are about "race mixing", then you must also acknowledge that laws against gays marrying are about "gender mixing". So yes, they are completely and utterly comparable. Both are examples of when large quantities of religious bigots don't like the make up of other people's marriage.

"gender segregation"!!!!! Oh, that's rich!!!!! Pffffffft!!!

What a f*cking moron you are!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199577 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Polly wanna cracker?!!
Damn girl, you are some f*cked up!!
Said the most F*ed up poster here.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199578 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is perfectly on topic in a discussion of marriage. Why do you attempt to censor it? Afraid of something?
Would you like me to find a censorship forum for you?
LOL!!! Rizzo believes that when one party has no interest in a completely different topic, that he is somehow being "censored"!!!!!!

Hey KiMare, after you buy your dictionary, would you consider letting Tizzy Rizzy borrow it?! It's evident he has no idea what the word "censor" means!!!!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199579 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it funny when the people of tolerance and diversity argue against equal rights?
Rizzy, please present the post in which ANYONE in this string argued against polygamy.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Post numbers please.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

What were their specific arguments against polygamy?

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199581 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The same definition it has had since women were no longer considered property of the husband. Most recently
it's defined as a "union", a "ceremony" and an "institution".
The legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife. That's it! Explain how does it remain he same "union", "institution", and/or "ceremony", when, in your case the wife is removed, and replaced with another man?
Same sex marriage is a term only used by people that wish to distinguish the marriages of straight people and gay people.
Or point out the obvious. "Straight", or "gay", aren't you forgetting the "mixed orientation" marriages? If, for example, a bisexual woman married a straight man, their marriage would be of mixed orientation. Let's not leave anybody out.
There is no actual "same sex marriage" anymore than there is an institution known as "inter-racial marriage".
Sure there is, two men/women, it's an SSM.
There is only one institution. Marriage.
Three actually. The original one of husband and wife, and two others, one gay male, one lesbian female, each with its own characteristics, customs, tradtions, etc, to the extent that enough time has passed to allow for those to form for SSM.
Gay people entering into that "union", or that "institution" or having that "ceremony" don't contradict the terms in any way.
As long as gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, they don't
Your statement, like most of your statements, is nothing more than a fundie unsupported propaganda point. Feel free to try again dear.
Ahhhhh dearie, I'm just pointing out the obvious, which I know you are capable of observing, and have in previous posts. It's only propaganda among the more zealous GLiBTee rainbow flag wavers, to claim that everything is the same, or "equal" expressed in Orwellian terms.
Pale Dago

Saint Charles, MO

#199582 Jul 2, 2013
And this surprises whom?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199583 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! Rizzo believes that when one party has no interest in a completely different topic, that he is somehow being "censored"!!!!!!
Hey KiMare, after you buy your dictionary, would you consider letting Tizzy Rizzy borrow it?! It's evident he has no idea what the word "censor" means!!!!!!
LOL! Joanie believes that poly MARRIAGE should be censored from a discussion of marriage! Too funny! Ha ha.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199584 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>So here you are day after day, trolling away. You want to talk about polygamy, yet when given the chance you fail. One might ask why. Well truth be told you don't care about Polygamy, you use it as a crutch to biatch that you are not given equal time. Frankly, its only you, that wish to debate polygamy.
Truth be told you don't care about marriage, the topic of this thread, you are only here because you're mad at me.

"Frankly" you're a bore.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#199587 Jul 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you vegetables need to be reminded that the SCROTUS vote was only 5 to 4. It wasn't a mandate. It wasn't a landslide. ITWASTHISCLOSE to being voted the other way. And again you need to be reminded that your "acceptance" is by vote trolling crooked politicians and the Lowest Common Denominator.
Allow me to tell you "intellectuals" what the Lowest Common Denominator is. It's a euphemism, an epithet, actually, a slur, for "The Common Man".
The Common Man is the type of mental cripple who will go and stand out in the rain for hours, hoping the camera will catch a millisecond glimpse during the Hollyweird sponsored segments of Good Mourning, Amurrica.
The Common Man will scream, on cue, like creepy groupie schoolgirls for Sam Champion and its "wife", or for the mention of names like George Michael or Boy George or Michael Jackson. The Common Man believes in flying saucers and buys the tabloid trash that greets them at K-Marts checkout.
Kris Jenner who?
As has been said already, if THAT's the support I'd have, I'd run like hell back to the closet or to jump off a building.
Only an imbecile brags about support from the Common Man.
Each year there are gains though. Minnesota just made same sex marriage legal each year more states do..Only time. I wish SCOTUS would look at the state bans on same sex...THOSE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT VERY LEAST IF NOT TYRANNICAL.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#199588 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....ohhkay....sounds simply fair....but why bother with legal recognition at all then?
Just a base rule 18 and consent....Lets make it simple. Sound good?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199589 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>He is pizzed that I pointed out the fact that the only people requesting Polygamy are doing so based on religious principles. What he does not understand is that as a nation we do not make or change laws based on religion. If we did, Same sex marriage would not be legal. The bible thumpers would have gotten their wish because of religion. That and he is a troll
I am pissed because you are such a hateful bigot that you would deny marriage equality on religious grounds.

Are you moronically saying that there are no polygamists that aren't fundies? Are you moronically saying we should deny marriage to people based on religion?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199590 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you a hypocrite?
What have I been hypocritical about Tizzy?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199591 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rizzy, please present the post in which ANYONE in this string argued against polygamy.
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Post numbers please.
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
What were their specific arguments against polygamy?
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
I have already completed one of your little post finding exercises showing you many posts of mine you said didn't exist. You didn't respond.

Your mentor Jizzy (zoro) or whatever his latest sock is called has argued polygamy shouldn't be allowed because religious people practice it. That's one example.

You yourself have argued against polygamy saying it shouldn't be allowed because "it's not marriage, it's more than one marriage". Or some such silly bigoted horsesh!t.

Rose_NoHo argues polygamy "is not an equal rights issue. It's just not."

Need I go on?

Hope that helps.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199592 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us the top ten bad things that will happen to you if polygamy is allowed.
Stupid B!tch. Chuckle.
You seem to think that I wish to discuss polygamy. You would be wrong. The subject of people having multiple marriages doesn't really interest me Tizzy.

Now you run along and pretend you've been censored like a good fundie!!
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199593 Jul 2, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Each year there are gains though. Minnesota just made same sex marriage legal each year more states do..Only time. I wish SCOTUS would look at the state bans on same sex...THOSE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT VERY LEAST IF NOT TYRANNICAL.
Juvenile rambling.

No, what's tyrannical is that you've been made a Protected Species with "hate crimes" legislation and "Diversity" sewage where you live in fear of your job if you don't celebrate the sphincter dwellers. Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.

Ask ABC employees about their job security, that if their news stories didn't include interviews with people on an approved Diversity list then it would reflect on their next Evaluation.

Look at the "Diversity" guidelines put out by the pinko SPJ less than a month after the attacks of September the 11th of 2001.

Diversity is dangerous. But you're obviously one of the Lowest Common Denominator, so all this just when in your ear and out your brain crack.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199594 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>He is pizzed that I pointed out the fact that the only people requesting Polygamy are doing so based on religious principles. What he does not understand is that as a nation we do not make or change laws based on religion. If we did, Same sex marriage would not be legal. The bible thumpers would have gotten their wish because of religion. That and he is a troll
Actually he's pissed because no one is doing what he wishes they would do, which is argue against polygamy. So instead he just simply PRETENDS that people are arguing against polygamy. It's very sad actually.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199595 Jul 2, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a base rule 18 and consent....Lets make it simple. Sound good?
If marriage is a right you cannot put restrictions on it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199596 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What have I been hypocritical about Tizzy?
Supporting marriage for people you like, Ridiculing it for people you hate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199597 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Damn you are stupid!!
Coming from the King of Stupid, that's quite the compliment.
1) Sexual orientation is ALSO a characteristic you idiot!!
Reading skills off are they? I didn't mention "sexual orientation" at all.
2) No, marriage is not JUST a union of both genders. It hasn't been restricted as such for over a decade now. It's 2013 stupid. It can be a union of both genders, or a union made up of only one gender.
A WHOLE decade?! Really, that long? Gee so in the history of the republic, SSM is a decade old.
3) There is no such entity as SSM, so your imaginary gender segregation doesn't exist. Just another of your lame fundie propagandist talking points.
Oh so you are the wife after all. You devil you.:). Or is it just more GLiBTee propaganda talking points?
Nothing makes you look stupider then when you try and use these ridiculous nonsensical terms.
Or when you claim SSM doesn't exist.
"gender segregation sanctioned by law"!!!! What a f*cked up tard you are!!! Segregation means that someone is being excluded
Yes, McFly, one gender is being excluded. You better check your spouse's anatomy again.
. Are you trying to imply that there are women that want to be included in the marriage of a gay man and are being excluded??!!!!
Nooooooooo Mc Fly, simply the state is sanctioning GENDER SEGREGATION in marriage, nothing was implied beyond that.
You are one f*cked up idiot!!! Tell me Pietro, when a straight man asks a straight woman to marry him, based on your terminology, he is...at that moment, segregating every other straight woman from his marriage.
Man oh man, you've been hitting the spike rainbow punch hard. When a man, asks a woman to marry him, he is asking her to be his lawfully wedded wife. The state sanctions a monogamous union of husband and wife. See both sexes included.
Hurry quick, you better address this "segregation". It's rampant!!!!!!!
Damn you are stupid.
Thank you, your highness, the King of Stupidia, the stupidest king in all the land.
3) If you are going to state that laws against inter-racial marriages are about "race mixing", then you must also acknowledge that laws against gays marrying are about "gender mixing"
Interracial marriage bans were intended to maintain white supremacy, and prevent "mice gentamicin of the white race".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
. So yes, they are completely and utterly comparable. Both are examples of when large quantities of religious bigots don't like the make up of other people's marriage.
So you will use laws against racial segregation in marriage to argue for gender segregation in marriage? An interracial opposite sex couple can, and have, accepted each other as HUSBAND AND WIFE. Their ethnicity doesn't affect that at all. They're a legally recognized union of husband and wife. There's the difference.

For a person who claims they're "gay", you're not happy. Plus you have potty mouth. Very bad Joh-née......very bad.
Sanos

Covina, CA

#199600 Jul 2, 2013
When our city council (Glendora) was up for election these “boobs” were our heros (?) and those who were running against our hero's were the boobs.

I always wondered how Judy Nelson, a real bimbo, could get enough votes, she did very little during the campaign yet she won. Judy was taking crash courses on city politics and practices from Chris Jeffers during working time periods in city hall, talk about wasting tax pays money, on her. She had been hand picked by the (dark shadow people) pulling the political strings in Glendora, California.

Karen Davis had an affair, a divorce and a bankruptcy, but what’s the dif, who cares, vote her in. The affair wasn't with another female as many thought but rather with a male Glendora Police Officer instead, you remember the cop who suddenly left and after the dust cleared returned to the GPD.

That's Reverend Karen Davis and Chaplin to the Glendora police department too.

Douglas Tessitor is on the verge of senility but he's still putters along as long as he doesn’t drool while in pubic view. The doctors keep him well supplied with pills and drugs, many can't wait for the next public viewing of his comedy antics.

Gene Murabito I can understand, I think he has a connection with the Mafia, cross him and its all over. Wasn't there a height requirement posted, you must be this tall before you can ride this?

What are the good, honest voters of Glendora, California thinking of when they vote?

All the while these (3) so called freely elected fools are getting fat and ruining Glendora, California. Mail ballots were cleaned before being opened.

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
Wana chat 26 min SEVEND12 1
News Highlands Park Playground Community Workshop Fri jen 1
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Thu Great Dark Art 90
Lyft in Sunnyvale Jun 19 Highspeed Brown 2
News Cupertino Union cancels teacher housing project Jun 19 Chillsea Cliton 2
Sex and booze at Stanford Jun 17 Hillary is a Liar 3
News Portola Valley: Robbers invade occupied home, t... Jun 17 Hillary is a Liar 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages