Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61392 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3355 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They are equally protected, the law does not make provisions for those who can't find a willing partner, and that would be a separate issue. Perhaps we should make an exception for the pathetic?
The issue here is whether there is a legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection for consenting, adult, same sex couples to marry.
No i think your pathetic in just repeating the same old line in every post.Why should the law be changed to provide one group with equal protection and not others and every time i give you an example all you can say is that thats another issue when its not.The real issue is why should we change the laws of marriage to include other people that arent currently protected by those laws and whether its justified for the state to do so.As ive stated before ,according to your logic,incestuos infertile couples would have just as much a reason to be able to get married as gays because there would be no state interest for the state to deny them .Im sure there are other non conventional groups out there that would be able to legally say the state has no interest in denying them marriage as well,but i personally dont want to see the law being changed at all as it works fine for almost 100 percent of the population as it is ,and has done so for as long as man has been around.

What makes gays so special that they would require the laws to be changed to accomodate their sexual fetish.In most cases being gay is a choice so therefore they are choosing not to get married in a conventional way so the law already provides equal protection for them but your just too stupid to see that.The only time being gay wouldnt be a choice is if they have some sort of mental issue in which they find all members of the opposite sex totally repulsive and just couldnt physically have sex with them.

Of course the gays try and hide the fact its a choice as was the case when Cynthia Nixon of sex and the city fame said she chose to be gay and the gay lobby tried to shut her up and get her to retract her statement.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3356 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume anything ever?
a) I never mentioned love, I have said repeatedly that this is about equal protection of the law. However with each renewed post, you true motivations are beginning to shine through.
b) I don't have AIDs, only a moron would make such an accusation absent truth.
<quoted text>
And you are once again off topic. Oh, and reported.
<quoted text>
No, my response to get over it is to your hopelessly short sighted argument to get the state out of the marriage business by means of a federal amendment,, when you fail to see that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to do so, and marriage still exists in EVERY state in the union.
Saying that state's should get out of the marriage business is a mindless rationalization often offered by anti-equality zealots with no on topic point or ability to articulate an intelligent argument against same sex marriage, or a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Are you trying to make yourself look dumb? If so, you are doing very well.
So you're saying that the government does not have the authority to make a Constitutional Amendment?

So you're saying that you don't marry because of "love"?

Well then! Drive on Parse Bunny! I'll bet that every marriage ritual in the country, state included, include some ditsy little verse about "love" in them.

Bang away at the ol' piano, Charlie Chaplin! You KNOW it's all about Love, loVe, lOvE, lovE, LOve, love, lOVe, love...... and so on, and so on..

So much for pathos, Jeeves! No kleptomaniac gratification for YOU!!

You're reporting me for being off topic? That's hilarious!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3357 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Please do! Yell it out a little louder. Louder still! VERY LOUD!
Fact? Nope!
It's sooooooo funy watching you chide others on facts. You never seem to have any.

Waiting for the legitimate state interest served by denying marriage equality, but I doubt you will produce it, because there isn't one.
common sense wrote:
No i think your pathetic in just repeating the same old line in every post.

Why would I change course when you canít answer the questions I have already asked, and canít defend your position?
common sense wrote:
Why should the law be changed to provide one group with equal protection and not others and every time i give you an example all you can say is that thats another issue when its not.The real issue is why should we change the laws of marriage to include other people that arent currently protected by those laws and whether its justified for the state to do so.
common sense wrote:
As ive stated before ,according to your logic,incestuos infertile couples would have just as much a reason to be able to get married as gays because there would be no state interest for the state to deny them .Im sure there are other non conventional groups out there that would be able to legally say the state has no interest in denying them marriage as well,but i personally dont want to see the law being changed at all as it works fine for almost 100 percent of the population as it is ,and has done so for as long as man has been around.
You are in this assertion. Whatís more, I can prove it. Was incest legalized after Loving v Virginia? Of course, not.
One can legalize one set of circumstances and leave others untouched. There are two reasons for this. a) they are two separate issues, and b) there is still a legitimate state interest served by denying the right to marry to close relations.
common sense wrote:
What makes gays so special that they would require the laws to be changed to accomodate their sexual fetish.In most cases being gay is a choice so therefore they are choosing not to get married in a conventional way so the law already provides equal protection for them but your just too stupid to see that.The only time being gay wouldnt be a choice is if they have some sort of mental issue in which they find all members of the opposite sex totally repulsive and just couldnt physically have sex with them.
Is it a choice to marry someone of another race?
common sense wrote:
Of course the gays try and hide the fact its a choice as was the case when Cynthia Nixon of sex and the city fame said she chose to be gay and the gay lobby tried to shut her up and get her to retract her statement.
Congratulations, in attempting to defend your BS argument, you have found one celebrity that agrees. That doesnít make it factual, and even if it WERE true, which you seem unable to prove, it would still have no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3358 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that the government does not have the authority to make a Constitutional Amendment?
I never said that, I said the federal government lacks the authority to craft laws regulating marriage, because the constitution does not delegate that authority to them, and the 10h Amendment states explicitly that ďThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Ē
anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that you don't marry because of "love"?
I am saying the state has no interest in why people marry. Many heterosexual couples marry for reasons other than love.
anonymous wrote:
Well then! Drive on Parse Bunny! I'll bet that every marriage ritual in the country, state included, include some ditsy little verse about "love" in them.
Actually, legally, that is irrelevant. Ironically, you have further damaged your argument, because same sex couples can be every bit as much in love as straight couples.
anonymous wrote:
Bang away at the ol' piano, Charlie Chaplin! You KNOW it's all about Love, loVe, lOvE, lovE, LOve, love, lOVe, love...... and so on, and so on..
NO, this is a civil matter having to do with equal protection of the laws.
anonymous wrote:
So much for pathos, Jeeves! No kleptomaniac gratification for YOU!!
You're reporting me for being off topic? That's hilarious!
No, actually, I reported you for posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand that ONLY address a personal insult.

You might notice that I have called you an idiot many times, however those posts also addressed the topic. You seem more and more hesitant to do so, and I suspect that is because you know you have no valid argument.

Feel free to prove me wrong by indicating a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. I think you are too dumb to pull it off.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3359 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sooooooo funy watching you chide others on facts. You never seem to have any.
Waiting for the legitimate state interest served by denying marriage equality, but I doubt you will produce it, because there isn't one.
<quoted text>
Why would I change course when you canít answer the questions I have already asked, and canít defend your position?
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You are in this assertion. Whatís more, I can prove it. Was incest legalized after Loving v Virginia? Of course, not.
One can legalize one set of circumstances and leave others untouched. There are two reasons for this. a) they are two separate issues, and b) there is still a legitimate state interest served by denying the right to marry to close relations.
<quoted text>
Is it a choice to marry someone of another race?
<quoted text>
Congratulations, in attempting to defend your BS argument, you have found one celebrity that agrees. That doesnít make it factual, and even if it WERE true, which you seem unable to prove, it would still have no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
ANd what is the legitimate state interest in denying those of close relations other than baby deformity if they have kids?.But in my example i said they were infertile so there goes that state interest,whats another.
Also i think choosing to marry someone of a different race has nothing at all to do with marrying someone of the same sex.How can you even compare the two,whats wrong with you!Wanting to marry someone of the same sex because you have a sexual fetish about it is nowhere near denying someone to marry someone of a different race.Different race vs just having a fetish ,thats so insulting to african americans.

common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3360 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sooooooo funy watching you chide others on facts. You never seem to have any.
Waiting for the legitimate state interest served by denying marriage equality, but I doubt you will produce it, because there isn't one.
<quoted text>
Why would I change course when you canít answer the questions I have already asked, and canít defend your position?
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You are in this assertion. Whatís more, I can prove it. Was incest legalized after Loving v Virginia? Of course, not.
One can legalize one set of circumstances and leave others untouched. There are two reasons for this. a) they are two separate issues, and b) there is still a legitimate state interest served by denying the right to marry to close relations.
<quoted text>
Is it a choice to marry someone of another race?
<quoted text>
Congratulations, in attempting to defend your BS argument, you have found one celebrity that agrees. That doesnít make it factual, and even if it WERE true, which you seem unable to prove, it would still have no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Asking me to prove that gays have a choice is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue,its just a childish way of saying that its true but you cant prove it.Also it is quite relevant as it does inpact the constitutional laws on equal protection because that means you already are protected like everyone else,you just choose not to marry the opposite sex so you cant expect the laws to be changed for frivolities such as sexual fetishes everytime someone comes up with one ,or starts whinging and whining loudly .

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3361 May 16, 2013
common sense wrote:
ANd what is the legitimate state interest in denying those of close relations other than baby deformity if they have kids?.
Congratulations, you've stumbled across the obvious. That is the state interest.
common sense wrote:
But in my example i said they were infertile so there goes that state interest,whats another.
I have no problem with same sex incest, the only ones pushing for it are the anti- equality crowd.
common sense wrote:
Also i think choosing to marry someone of a different race has nothing at all to do with marrying someone of the same sex.
You can think whatever you want. You are wrong. Unless you can offer a legitimate state interest served by barring same sex couples from marriage, then laws against it are unconstitutional.
common sense wrote:
How can you even compare the two,whats wrong with you!Wanting to marry someone of the same sex because you have a sexual fetish about it is nowhere near denying someone to marry someone of a different race.Different race vs just having a fetish ,thats so insulting to african americans.
In each case it is a choice. Also, in each case there is no governmental interest served by denying free-will, free-speech, or equal protection.

Feel free to offer a factually substantiated argument to the contrary.

I don't think you can.
common sense wrote:
Asking me to prove that gays have a choice is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue,its just a childish way of saying that its true but you cant prove it.
common sense wrote:
Also it is quite relevant as it does inpact the constitutional laws on equal protection because that means you already are protected like everyone else,you just choose not to marry the opposite sex so you cant expect the laws to be changed for frivolities such as sexual fetishes everytime someone comes up with one ,or starts whinging and whining loudly .
I can expect equal protection under the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed; and I can expect due process of law to ensure that restrictions against rights will be constitutional. It takes a true imbecile to argue that equal protection exists for homosexuals to marry someone of the obvious sex (one would need to be a mental midget to advance such an argument, because to do so is to advocate sham marriages.)

have you come up with a legitimate state interest served by denying gay marriage yet? I bet you havenít.

And you are correct, you are whining, both loudly, pointlesslym and without logical basis.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3362 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, you've stumbled across the obvious. That is the state interest.
<quoted text>
I have no problem with same sex incest, the only ones pushing for it are the anti- equality crowd.
<quoted text>
You can think whatever you want. You are wrong. Unless you can offer a legitimate state interest served by barring same sex couples from marriage, then laws against it are unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
In each case it is a choice. Also, in each case there is no governmental interest served by denying free-will, free-speech, or equal protection.
Feel free to offer a factually substantiated argument to the contrary.
I don't think you can.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I can expect equal protection under the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed; and I can expect due process of law to ensure that restrictions against rights will be constitutional. It takes a true imbecile to argue that equal protection exists for homosexuals to marry someone of the obvious sex (one would need to be a mental midget to advance such an argument, because to do so is to advocate sham marriages.)
have you come up with a legitimate state interest served by denying gay marriage yet? I bet you havenít.
And you are correct, you are whining, both loudly, pointlesslym and without logical basis.
Youre effin unbelievable,even when someone gives you your precious reason of state interest in denying gay marriage you just twist things and omit things,and come up with some legitimate sounding crap and finish with the same question again.You just dont want to listen or see reason ,and to be honest its pretty pointless as i'll never convince you or you me and were jsut goin round in circles.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3363 May 16, 2013
Barack Obama contrived to intimidate political opponents using the IRS. He got donations from same sex marriage supporters for his efforts.

If unions can give political donations, why can't their employers do the same?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3364 May 17, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
ANd what is the legitimate state interest in denying those of close relations other than baby deformity if they have kids?.But in my example i said they were infertile so there goes that state interest,whats another.
Also i think choosing to marry someone of a different race has nothing at all to do with marrying someone of the same sex.How can you even compare the two,whats wrong with you!Wanting to marry someone of the same sex because you have a sexual fetish about it is nowhere near denying someone to marry someone of a different race.Different race vs just having a fetish ,thats so insulting to african americans.
Saying that it insults African-Americans implies that it does not insult other Americans. Just don't pursue that angle. It's a dead end!

What matters is that the State has no business in meddling in the affairs of marriage. Consider it religion or a pursuit of happiness. It's not the government's job to condemn or condone any form of sexual behavior.

What matters is unfair taxation, and no, I have no intention of just "dealing with it" regardless of what any low-life opportunist shouts at me with a megaphone.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3365 May 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sooooooo funy watching you chide others on facts. You never seem to have any.
Waiting for the legitimate state interest served by denying marriage equality, but I doubt you will produce it, because there isn't one.
<quoted text>
Why would I change course when you canít answer the questions I have already asked, and canít defend your position?
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You are in this assertion. Whatís more, I can prove it. Was incest legalized after Loving v Virginia? Of course, not.
One can legalize one set of circumstances and leave others untouched. There are two reasons for this. a) they are two separate issues, and b) there is still a legitimate state interest served by denying the right to marry to close relations.
<quoted text>
Is it a choice to marry someone of another race?
<quoted text>
Congratulations, in attempting to defend your BS argument, you have found one celebrity that agrees. That doesnít make it factual, and even if it WERE true, which you seem unable to prove, it would still have no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
You're monologuing again, parse bunny!

Now you're parsing out sound bites from multiple posters. This isn't a debate with you. It just another cheap fantasy that you're trying to choreograph. You must be writing a new Broadway show. It's embarrassing enough to see loons pretending to be cats onstage for years.

Rude. Childish. Serious denial.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3366 May 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that, I said the federal government lacks the authority to craft laws regulating marriage, because the constitution does not delegate that authority to them, and the 10h Amendment states explicitly that ďThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Ē
<quoted text>
I am saying the state has no interest in why people marry. Many heterosexual couples marry for reasons other than love.
<quoted text>
Actually, legally, that is irrelevant. Ironically, you have further damaged your argument, because same sex couples can be every bit as much in love as straight couples.
<quoted text>
NO, this is a civil matter having to do with equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
No, actually, I reported you for posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand that ONLY address a personal insult.
You might notice that I have called you an idiot many times, however those posts also addressed the topic. You seem more and more hesitant to do so, and I suspect that is because you know you have no valid argument.
Feel free to prove me wrong by indicating a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. I think you are too dumb to pull it off.
Congress can change the Constitution by adding or repealing amendments. It works like this. Constitution > Amendment = Constitution and Amendments.

I'd say you don't understand government but I'm increasingly convinced that you just don't understand English vocabulary.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3367 May 17, 2013
common sense wrote:
Youre effin unbelievable,even when someone gives you your precious reason of state interest in denying gay marriage you just twist things and omit things,and come up with some legitimate sounding crap and finish with the same question again.You just dont want to listen or see reason ,and to be honest its pretty pointless as i'll never convince you or you me and were jsut goin round in circles.
That's because the purported interest isn't a legitimate state interest. The domino theory has already been proven false by the allowance of interracial marriage. It had no effect upon laws banning incest, polygamy, etc.
I actually illustrated why the rationalization was not applicable with specific examples.
One would have to be pretty dim to think the argument I was addressing was a legitimate one.
Brian_G wrote:
Barack Obama contrived to intimidate political opponents using the IRS. He got donations from same sex marriage supporters for his efforts.
If unions can give political donations, why can't their employers do the same?
Do you really want to open that can of worms. Even with the IRS involvement only 8 groups were denied 501 c 4 status, and if we start looking at the financial data, MUCH more money poured into the Republican coffers than into those of the Democrats.
anonymous wrote:
You're monologuing again, parse bunny!
Now you're parsing out sound bites from multiple posters. This isn't a debate with you. It just another cheap fantasy that you're trying to choreograph. You must be writing a new Broadway show. It's embarrassing enough to see loons pretending to be cats onstage for years.
Rude. Childish. Serious denial.
Do you have anything on topic to say? Have you come up with a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
anonymous wrote:
Congress can change the Constitution by adding or repealing amendments. It works like this. Constitution > Amendment = Constitution and Amendments.
I'd say you don't understand government but I'm increasingly convinced that you just don't understand English vocabulary.
They could amend the constitution, however not with the current congress. It seems to me that you understand neither law, nor government, nor the reality on the ground.

IF congress DID pass a law getting government out of the marriage business, and striking existing marriage in all 50 states, it wouldnít be a pretty picture.

Your argument is patently absurd, and is one of the stupidest employed by anti-equality folks.
Would you care to attempt a big-boy argument?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3368 May 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text> The answer was quite clearly given. My "decision" was not about choosing sexuality because I consider it subordinate to other conditions of sociability.
Because of the nature of my social existence, I chose heterosexuality simply because I had no reason to consider alternatives. Did you "choose" to breath today? Feel free to be a non-conformist if it suits you!
Exactly!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3369 May 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because the purported interest isn't a legitimate state interest. The domino theory has already been proven false by the allowance of interracial marriage. It had no effect upon laws banning incest, polygamy, etc.
I actually illustrated why the rationalization was not applicable with specific examples.
One would have to be pretty dim to think the argument I was addressing was a legitimate one.
<quoted text>
Do you really want to open that can of worms. Even with the IRS involvement only 8 groups were denied 501 c 4 status, and if we start looking at the financial data, MUCH more money poured into the Republican coffers than into those of the Democrats.
<quoted text>
Do you have anything on topic to say? Have you come up with a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
<quoted text>
They could amend the constitution, however not with the current congress. It seems to me that you understand neither law, nor government, nor the reality on the ground.
IF congress DID pass a law getting government out of the marriage business, and striking existing marriage in all 50 states, it wouldnít be a pretty picture.
Your argument is patently absurd, and is one of the stupidest employed by anti-equality folks.
Would you care to attempt a big-boy argument?
Hey! Parse bunny! Since when is IRS audits of non-profits being on topic?

Since when did I say anything about the current political leanings of THIS Congress.

Jees! You're just whizzing in the wind, but it concerns me that you actually LIKE to do that!
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3370 May 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because the purported interest isn't a legitimate state interest. The domino theory has already been proven false by the allowance of interracial marriage. It had no effect upon laws banning incest, polygamy, etc.
I actually illustrated why the rationalization was not applicable with specific examples.
One would have to be pretty dim to think the argument I was addressing was a legitimate one.
<quoted text>
Do you really want to open that can of worms. Even with the IRS involvement only 8 groups were denied 501 c 4 status, and if we start looking at the financial data, MUCH more money poured into the Republican coffers than into those of the Democrats.
<quoted text>
Do you have anything on topic to say? Have you come up with a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
<quoted text>
They could amend the constitution, however not with the current congress. It seems to me that you understand neither law, nor government, nor the reality on the ground.
IF congress DID pass a law getting government out of the marriage business, and striking existing marriage in all 50 states, it wouldnít be a pretty picture.
Your argument is patently absurd, and is one of the stupidest employed by anti-equality folks.
Would you care to attempt a big-boy argument?
IN responce to your answer,so what is the purported state interest in allowing gay marriage,and why do others need one and gays dont.Also you say that allowing interracial marriages is proof that there will be no follow on effect ,but gay marriage is a follow on effect.By the way im not saying im against interacial marriages ,just trying to make a point.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3371 May 17, 2013
Reason 32 for keeping marriage male/female: I.R.S.

If you don't want to be audited, keep marriage one man and one woman.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3372 May 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Reason 32 for keeping marriage male/female: I.R.S.
If you don't want to be audited, keep marriage one man and one woman.
No tax breaks for marriage. No IRS problem. Done!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3373 May 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! Parse bunny! Since when is IRS audits of non-profits being on topic?
Since when did I say anything about the current political leanings of THIS Congress.
Jees! You're just whizzing in the wind, but it concerns me that you actually LIKE to do that!
Never said it was, I was responding to another users off topic post. Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension so that you could infer these things on your own?

I love it when you respond without saying anything whatsoever on topic. Each post of that variety is a tacit admission that you have no valid on topic argument.

Feel free to prove me wrong by offering a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional; or by indicating where in the US Constitution that the federal government is delegated the authority to regulate marriage that would render DOMA, or your proposed Constitutional Amendment to get the government out of the marriage business.

I don't think you are up to the task.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3374 May 17, 2013
common sense wrote:
IN responce to your answer,so what is the purported state interest in allowing gay marriage,and why do others need one and gays dont.
Your ignorance is showing again. The question is one of levels of judicial review. If a state wishes to deny a fundamental right, then a state interest in necessary. If no such interest exists then the denial is not constitutional. No one need to prove a state interest in order to obtain equal protection of the laws.

You have no idea what you are talking about, you are ignorant of the law, and you are incapable of offering a valid state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

Feel free to prove me wrong, I don't think you are up to the task.
common sense wrote:
Also you say that allowing interracial marriages is proof that there will be no follow on effect ,but gay marriage is a follow on effect.By the way im not saying im against interacial marriages ,just trying to make a point.
No, it is not a "follow on effect" (did you mean result of?), if it were it would have happened when laws against interracial marriage were struck down by the court. Of course, same sex marriage couples will cite interracial marriage cases, because it is a similar issue, where no governmental interest was served by the restrictions, and they were eventually overturned by the court. Actually, that is exactly how one constructs a logical argument.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 240,929
News California Democrats take aim at Trump, GOP Con... 2 hr Curious 17
News Passage of immigration crackdown in California ... (Apr '10) 2 hr Curious 234
News ICE arrests nearly 200 illegal immigrants in Ca... 4 hr tomin cali 1
News Treasury Chief to Congress: Raise Debt Limit Be... Wed Red Crosse 9
Bella Esmail Moore Wanted For FRAUD!! Iranian Wed Romel Esmail Wanted 2
News California takes many hits, large and small, in... Wed Solarman 1
More from around the web