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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193408 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post, Paisan.
Grazie....nice slogan "Daddies back". I've been posting from the mobile site, so I didn't see it before now. I like it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193409 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
Ya know....."can of worms" is an apt metaphor. Yeahhhhh.....why do the SSMers suddenly get the authority to decides who gets the marriage tag, and who doesn't after they get theirs.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193410 May 26, 2013
Alex Love wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have had too many erections to orally service over this weekend. All that man-load has gone to your head and has made you stupider than a bag of rocks.
You sound like a man of experience, but most other men don't swallow man loads like you so no need to worry about us power trooper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193412 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I see his point perfectly. He believes in the "Double Standard", and embraces it, to his bosom, but denies this same tit to the others in the pack. We that are against SSM "fear" what his side brings to the table, but he does not "fear" polygamy, he is intellectually able to deduce the invalid nature of anothers marital choice, and to keenly discern the difference between the ability of his kind having a choice, and the other side, not being worthy to exercise the same choice. Frankly, I'm surprised that Super D, that ever-gushing vestibule of moral correctness, hasn't stepped in, to chide his brother for his bias. I'm greatly disappointed to not bear witness to the quick, phone-booth metamorphosis of the D into the manifestation of America's Majesty, and to jump in, shouting "I'll not stand by, while injustice is being served", but, there I am, witnessing the bias, that has been declared to be non-existent, again rearing its ugly head.
Against SSM = Fear.
Against Polygamy = Intellectually Righteous.
LMAO!

Ever notice Big D only posts during the hours the library is open?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193415 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure rot, my good ma....anyway. Pure rot. Heterosexuality would rule out polygamy, because, as soon as a third spouse is introduced, one or the other marital member would make it a SSM type of marriage. See my point? It takes your argument to pave the way for your ignored brothers and sisters. 1 man and 1 woman would rule out polygamy. 2 of the same gender being allowed to marry would allow for mixed couples.
Are you mad? Polygamy doesn't work that way. They don't all sleep in the same bed.

Heck, it's not uncommon for polygamist marriages to have the wives living in different houses.

It's not straight man with a group of lesbians in tow.(even though that seems to be so many straight men's fantasy)

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193417 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
SPEAKING OF DECEIT...
The standard of marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. Your side is ushering in the demise of this standard, so for you to claim "deceit" is deceitful. You do not get to decide which kids get to ride on the short bus, and which ones don't. You have petitioned the courts to enforce the acceptance of your side's cause, against the majority of the people's opinions, so, do not preach about deceit, you are being false. If SSM is to be allowed, against the historical standards that have existed up until now, then these standards are going to be rewritten, with, or WITHOUT your control over the issue. With, or WITHOUT you presiding over the issue, and electing yourselves as judge, jury and executioners of "standards". Got that? You have opened the can of worms, don't you dare to presume that you are the ones who will decide who qualifies now.
First, don't take that tone with me.

Second, the standard of marriage HAS NOT always been 1 man, 1 woman. Read some history once in a while.

Finally, you think that the majority of people ALWAYS make the right decision? Ever hear of mob mentality? Ever hear of slavery? Ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? Ever hear of the "Moral Majority"? "THE MAJORITY" has gotten it wrong MANY times! Frankly, I don't give a DAMN what the majority thinks.

You don't get to vote on rights and protections that impact me without a fight!
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193419 May 26, 2013
Another crooked COP, oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193420 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes him feel big, fierce, and tough, to imagine us quaking in fear at anything that he mentions so casually. Like he can harness atomic power in his hands.
VV considers polygamy just a ploy against same sex marriage. How self centered is that?

Most polygamists support SSM. Most SSM advocates don't reciprocate. I guess they want to hog all the marriage equality for themselves.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193421 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mad? Polygamy doesn't work that way. They don't all sleep in the same bed.
Heck, it's not uncommon for polygamist marriages to have the wives living in different houses.
It's not straight man with a group of lesbians in tow.(even though that seems to be so many straight men's fantasy)
I encourage my wives to have sex with each other while I am gone, that way they are not tempted to go outside our family.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193425 May 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesssssss......mono is not poly.
<quoted text>
But you are trying to eliminate the sole legal definition/standard of marriage as a union of Husband and wile.
<quoted text>
So then marry someone of the opposite sex and then you'll get the "same rights and protections". In reality what you're asking the state to do is declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
<quoted text>
Thus achieving the goal that you seek.
<quoted text>
We fear the continued devaluation of marriage through its redefinition, and the possible long term consequences of that.
<quoted text>
No, polygamy won't rush in, it'll slip in on the wake of SSM. Why that would bother you, baffles me?
<quoted text>
No, more of a concern for society as a whole, and for the next generation.
<quoted text>
As do you, you want to exclude polygamists from it.
<quoted text>
Its not allowing them to marry, but changing the definition do they can marry. But, I'll ask anyway. What specific improvements do you speak of? Can they not be effected by a Civil Union structure?
So you want gay men to marry straight women and gay women to marry straight men? How do you think the straight women and straight men are going to feel about that? Would you want your straight son or daughter entering into a sham marriage with a gay person? Do you think they would be happy?

Sometimes it's best to think things through before you spout off and sound like a jack-ass.

I think it's REALLY rich for you to be concerned about the "devaluation of marriage". Have you looked at marriages lately? Have you looked at the divorce rates? Have you looked at the monstrosities that weddings have become? LGBT people are begging to have the right to marry their partners. We would very likely do a MUCH BETTER job at holding our marriages in check than heterosexuals. We certainly couldn't do much worse.

What specific improvements? Hmmm... How about every single right and protection that heterosexual couples currently value in their legal marriage? You know, like the Family Medical Leave Act, that allows a married partner to protect his/her job if his/her spouse becomes ill and needs to be cared for over an extended period of time. And then there are things like social security benefits, hospital visitation benefits, living in base housing if your spouse is in the armed forces, Medicare benefits... I won't go into the specifics, but there are some 1,000+ rights, protections and benefits that come with marriage.

Those rights, protections and benefits give couples a quality of life.

You want them to be called "civil unions"? Again, VERY petty. You're basically saying that we'll all be equal, just call it something else. How very adult of you.

I've challenged Kimare to show me an example of two contracts that are identical in every single way possible, only they have different names. I'll extend the challenge to you.

The legal system doesn't work that way. And it shouldn't.

If we are going to have every single right, protection and benefit of marriage, then it should be called marriage. To call it something else is absolutely ridiculous.

Oh, and one final thing... I don't fear polygamy. If polygamy becomes legal, it would have no impact on me personally. It's kind of like IRS laws that only apply to multi-millionaires. They don't impact me. I don't support polygamy as a personal choice for myself. And I would be concerned if a niece or nephew of mine would want to enter into a plural marriage. I would want them to know that I don't think they are really happy relationships--that they're often fraught with difficult relationship dynamics. And I wouldn't "support" them. But I'm not going to fight against them.

That's the difference between you and I. You are fighting against SSM. I am not fighting against polygamy. I'm simply not endorsing it.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#193427 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
First, don't take that tone with me.
I am Brucie
Hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193428 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
First, don't take that tone with me.
Second, the standard of marriage HAS NOT always been 1 man, 1 woman. Read some history once in a while.
Finally, you think that the majority of people ALWAYS make the right decision? Ever hear of mob mentality? Ever hear of slavery? Ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? Ever hear of the "Moral Majority"? "THE MAJORITY" has gotten it wrong MANY times! Frankly, I don't give a DAMN what the majority thinks.
You don't get to vote on rights and protections that impact me without a fight!
Too funny! Relax fruitcake.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193429 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't take that tone with you? I just did, and shall continue to do so, as I see fit! Why don't you bring your big ass over here, and sort me out?....Yeah.....thought so.
Now, on to business.....
The standard of marriage was defined to set a family unit, heretofore defined as: " 1 husband, 1 wife and X amount of children". Do some research yourself. "The majority"? We don't count. We know that. We have no right to declare what we find proper. We are not allowed to have any say in our surroundings. We don't get to shield our children against indecencies. We have to stand idly, while our children are robbed of their innocence. Don't preach to me about "The Majority", which used to count, until some fools got their hands on law degrees, and decided to exploit some loopholes, and to twist the Constitution, even to the point of claiming (falsely) that the 14th Amendment (An Amendment concerning racial issues) covered everyone! Ridiculous.
And, Swizzle-Stick, we didn't vote on any Rights and Protections that cover you, you were not included or intended to have any of these things for your purposes of validating sexual misbehavior. You have usurped the Corridors Of Power, and infiltrated our Capitol with lobbyists, giving BJ's under the desks, and greasing palms with $$ to get what you want. You cannot stomach a fight. It's why you use words like "fear" to describe the fight that you are getting.
Sit down, before I put you there...
Baby, I'd LOVE to see you come over here and put my 6'5", 250# ass anywhere! You may need to get pumped up on some steroids or bring a few of your friends, because not only am I a BIG faggot, I'm a mean and angry faggot!

Do you think gay people get to the age of 47 without having to deal with morons like you? I DON'T back down!

And if YOU don't like the way the system works, then YOU need to haul your ass to some third-world, back-water country where unelected leaders dictate to the masses. That ain't how it works around here.

Who cares why the 14th Amendment was written? IF the 14th Amendment is applicable to the cases before the Supreme Court, then that will help our cause. If the justices decide that the 14th Amendment is not applicable, then it's back to the drawing board for us.

We WILL get what we want.

I think that what gets under your skin more than anything is that you know this. You know that you are powerless to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal in the US. And that's why you guys get on here and throw little hissy fits about how gays are going to destroy traditional marriage and family.

And that's another thing you brought up--not being able to shield your kids from indecency... Please! You've GOT to be kidding!! If you have kids, they probably have access to the Internet, cable TV, violent video games, etc.

I guarantee you that your kids have been exposed to much more indecent things that gay people.

So, anytime you want to haul your ass over to Knoxville and "put me" anywhere, bring it... I ain't going anywhere!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193430 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want gay men to marry straight women and gay women to marry straight men? How do you think the straight women and straight men are going to feel about that? Would you want your straight son or daughter entering into a sham marriage with a gay person? Do you think they would be happy?
Sometimes it's best to think things through before you spout off and sound like a jack-ass.
I think it's REALLY rich for you to be concerned about the "devaluation of marriage". Have you looked at marriages lately? Have you looked at the divorce rates? Have you looked at the monstrosities that weddings have become? LGBT people are begging to have the right to marry their partners. We would very likely do a MUCH BETTER job at holding our marriages in check than heterosexuals. We certainly couldn't do much worse.
What specific improvements? Hmmm... How about every single right and protection that heterosexual couples currently value in their legal marriage? You know, like the Family Medical Leave Act, that allows a married partner to protect his/her job if his/her spouse becomes ill and needs to be cared for over an extended period of time. And then there are things like social security benefits, hospital visitation benefits, living in base housing if your spouse is in the armed forces, Medicare benefits... I won't go into the specifics, but there are some 1,000+ rights, protections and benefits that come with marriage.
Those rights, protections and benefits give couples a quality of life.
You want them to be called "civil unions"? Again, VERY petty. You're basically saying that we'll all be equal, just call it something else. How very adult of you.
I've challenged Kimare to show me an example of two contracts that are identical in every single way possible, only they have different names. I'll extend the challenge to you.
The legal system doesn't work that way. And it shouldn't.
If we are going to have every single right, protection and benefit of marriage, then it should be called marriage. To call it something else is absolutely ridiculous.
Oh, and one final thing... I don't fear polygamy. If polygamy becomes legal, it would have no impact on me personally. It's kind of like IRS laws that only apply to multi-millionaires. They don't impact me. I don't support polygamy as a personal choice for myself. And I would be concerned if a niece or nephew of mine would want to enter into a plural marriage. I would want them to know that I don't think they are really happy relationships--that they're often fraught with difficult relationship dynamics. And I wouldn't "support" them. But I'm not going to fight against them.
That's the difference between you and I. You are fighting against SSM. I am not fighting against polygamy. I'm simply not endorsing it.
Don't take that tone!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193431 May 26, 2013
Don't take that tone with me!
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193432 May 26, 2013
There needs to a bounty put on their heads.

Another crooked COP, oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193433 May 26, 2013
Don't take that tone with me!

Haven't heard that since about 1968. Had a girlfriend in Memphis used to talk to me like that when she was mad at me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193434 May 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Baby, I'd LOVE to see you come over here and put my 6'5", 250# ass anywhere! You may need to get pumped up on some steroids or bring a few of your friends, because not only am I a BIG faggot, I'm a mean and angry faggot!
Do you think gay people get to the age of 47 without having to deal with morons like you? I DON'T back down!
And if YOU don't like the way the system works, then YOU need to haul your ass to some third-world, back-water country where unelected leaders dictate to the masses. That ain't how it works around here.
Who cares why the 14th Amendment was written? IF the 14th Amendment is applicable to the cases before the Supreme Court, then that will help our cause. If the justices decide that the 14th Amendment is not applicable, then it's back to the drawing board for us.
We WILL get what we want.
I think that what gets under your skin more than anything is that you know this. You know that you are powerless to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal in the US. And that's why you guys get on here and throw little hissy fits about how gays are going to destroy traditional marriage and family.
And that's another thing you brought up--not being able to shield your kids from indecency... Please! You've GOT to be kidding!! If you have kids, they probably have access to the Internet, cable TV, violent video games, etc.
I guarantee you that your kids have been exposed to much more indecent things that gay people.
So, anytime you want to haul your ass over to Knoxville and "put me" anywhere, bring it... I ain't going anywhere!
Calm down fruitloops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193435 May 26, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that a bit like doing the cowboy thing, and not giving a reach-around?
Yep. Not even the courtesy of a reach around.
Gongers

Covina, CA

#193440 May 26, 2013
There needs to a bounty put on their heads, secret hot line to turn them all in at once.

Another crooked COP, oops I mean more crooked cops.

Bong the Gong and get this mess over with.

A South Lake Tahoe, California police officer pleaded guilty May 22, 2013 Wednesday to multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding.

A three-year, multi-agency investigation involving the FBI led to 44-year-old John Gerald Polandís arrest in January 2013 on five counts of witness tampering.

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.

San Diego Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Awesome E-Juice 2 hr JJs Vape Shop 1
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 3 hr theos 2,276
Will U.S. Marine SGt. Andrew Tahmooressi Be Fre... 20 hr Air_Force1 1
The New Downtown Library is Really 21 hr nifongnation 8
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 22 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sat surfs up 7,955
New hurricane heads toward... Sep 19 rollo 1
•••
•••
•••

San Diego Jobs

•••
•••
•••

San Diego People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

San Diego News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in San Diego
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••