Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,809

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.

Read more
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177855 Jan 31, 2013
Bruno wrote:
Pizzo, you are a real wack job ...
It's better than being a SECOND CLASS JACKASS like you!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177856 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe because there was NOTHING about polygamy in his decision..... geez.
You hate polygamists because "there was NOTHING about polygamy in his decision..... geez."?

Do you rest your case?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177857 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
What legally married gay couple is getting multiple government assistence checks?
You're about as bright as a black hole.
I just replace poly in his hateful rant with same sex marriage to see how he liked the sound of it dummy.

What a dope!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177858 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the trial testimony was about SSM and NOT poly, the ruling was about SSM, not poly, the appeal was about SSM, not poly, the appeals court ruling was about SSM and not poly. The appeal to SCOTUS is about SSM, not poly. When SCOTUS overturns Prop 8, SSM will be legal again, poly will NOT.
So you think the judge's decision bodes poorly for the future of legalized poly?

I think you are wrong. I think allowing same sex marriage will help the case for allowing poly. It's just common sense.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177859 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not opposed to same sex marriage. I fully support it. I have been to several gay weddings (have you?) I have friends and family that I love who are in same sex marriages. I resent your dishonest attempts to demonize me.
I am trying to discuss marriage equality. The only reason you will not engage is because you are attempting to avoid revealing your hypocrisy. And failing, I might add.
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.

Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.

There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.

As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.

Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177860 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe because there was NOTHING about polygamy in his decision..... geez.
We know that Miss Thing! Duh! You need to get up to speed. Perhaps you cannot read well?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177861 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You hate polygamists because "there was NOTHING about polygamy in his decision..... geez."?
Do you rest your case?
Another fine example of your reading comprehension problem. Where did you see me write write anything about hating poly? See how you are? When you get an answer you can't dispute, you just make something else up to argue about.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177862 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I just replace poly in his hateful rant with same sex marriage to see how he liked the sound of it dummy.
What a dope!
So you wrote something you didn't mean. Surprise.
Jane DooDoo

Monrovia, CA

#177864 Jan 31, 2013
Draw up a plank and set yourself on it.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177865 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think the judge's decision bodes poorly for the future of legalized poly?
I think you are wrong. I think allowing same sex marriage will help the case for allowing poly. It's just common sense.
Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.

Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#177866 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wrote something you didn't mean. Surprise.
and he also lied about my hatred of the concept

I donít... I hate what far to many of the adherents do with it, child molestation and welfare fraud.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177867 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.
Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.
There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
It's not moot jackass. There are real people being denied equal protection. Good people. Despite your ignorance and bigotry.

You just wish it was moot. You're dismissed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177868 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fine example of your reading comprehension problem. Where did you see me write write anything about hating poly? See how you are? When you get an answer you can't dispute, you just make something else up to argue about.
I assume it because of your avoidance of the issue.

And I know it because of your infamous anti poly rant of a year or so ago. You can deny it but you and I both know it's true.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177869 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wrote something you didn't mean. Surprise.
So your being dishonest. Surprise.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#177870 Jan 31, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not moot jackass. There are real people being denied equal protection. Good people. Despite your ignorance and bigotry.
You just wish it was moot. You're dismissed.
Yeah.... it's arbitrary, ain't it? LMFAO@you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177871 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
When I say the judges decision bodes well for poly you disagree. That's where.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177872 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and he also lied about my hatred of the concept
I donít... I hate what far to many of the adherents do with it, child molestation and welfare fraud.
Here comes the Big D "you're a liar" straw man!

Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177873 Jan 31, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You go ahead and rant and rave, Same sex marriage is already a reality and will continue to spread.
Your pet rant is going nowhere, not because of any objection of mine ( I donít have an objection to the concept of it ), but because of the actions of far tooo many of the adherents of it.
There may come a time a couple of decades down the road when this changes, but it is not changing yet, regardless of what you, I or another else in this forum thinks
.
As religion becomes less and less a force in American politics the current adherents of it will sink further into oblivion.
Until a more mature, and more human group champions it, it is moot.
Is your objection to poly on religious grounds? You hate religion, some polygamists are religious therefore you hate polygamy?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177874 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Again? <shakes head> Where did I say the judge's decision bodes poorly for poly? I didn't. I said the decision wasn't about poly.
Yeah, common sense.... the decision had nothing to do with poly so it's "common sense" that it does. got it.
It's common sense that removing the gender part of one man one woman makes it easier to remove the number part.

Even if Miss Thnig is too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Or both.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#177875 Jan 31, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... it's arbitrary, ain't it? LMFAO@you
On what grounds do you insist on the traditional, ARBITRARY, discriminatory and indefensible number of two?

P.S. The answer is not "LMFAO@you"

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) 8 min red and right 185,957
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 16 min no one 58,932
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min SpaceBlues 52,413
News Isn't It Time to "Send in the Cavalry" for the ... Sun Crusher 1
News Jerry Brown is mad Ted Cruz is running for pres... Sun mememine69 7
News How To Remove Florida Arrest.org And a Dui Mug ... (Jun '11) Sat the shield 138
News California attorney general moves to end anti-g... Mar 27 Sneaky Pete 26
More from around the web