Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
129,401 - 129,420 of 200,347 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I'm walkin' here!”

Since: May 12

New York, New York

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145634
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a lie at all. I don't support non-existant things like SSM. I support marriage. That's why I entered into one with my husband.
And I haven't said one word either for or against you beloved institution of polygamy, no matter how many times you accuse me of it. The only liar here is you dear.
You don't support marriage because you do not support group marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145635
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:
You don't support marriage because you do not support group marriage.
Is three or more greater than two, yes or no?

Do you understand what equal means?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145636
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it be a part of a marriage equality discussion? Because discussions like this one that go on for years go all over the place.
Given you've taken the quote out of context (the string of comments that went before it) it is hard to understand why the converstion went that way.
I suspect that you claimed Dan had threatened you. He disagreed and went on to tell you what would constitute a threat by giving an example.
Telling you what a threat would be is not the same as threatening you by making a statement like "I'll be at your house in 30 minutes to bash in your brains with a baseball bat."
Take note here simple simon, I have not said I'm going to do this. First, I don't know where you live. Second, I'm not a violent person and have never used a weapon against another human being. Third, I've got absolutely no motivation to do something stupid like this. Fourth, I've got way too much to lose if I were to do so.
I can just see you coming back a few weeks from now and lifting just a small portion of this comment to make the claim I've threatened you when I have, clearly, made no such thing. Is that how you work?
Here's Dan's whole threat cut and pasted complete from his post #144889. It's a threat pure and simple, just the last sentence alone qualifies it not to mention the rest of it.

"Ohhhh Frankie.
That's not a threat. A threat would be direct like telling you I was coming over to your house tonight to smack some sense into you with a Louisville Slugger...LOL!!!
What I gave you was some common sense. You don't go running around talking shit to people you have nothing to do with and hope to get home to a dinner of steak and potatoes without thinking you'll get whomped on one day.
That's common sense Franky not to mention a reminder to be socialble.
As far as the lie about turning you into a pretzel I merely mentioned if you talked to my friends like you do me in here they too might think about giving you a new look.
LOL!!!
Are you that much of a hermit you don't know this????
If you don't believe me go out into a public square and locate some people you don't seem to care for and let them have one of your verbal onslaughts with a first aid kit in one hand and a stopwatch in the other and tell me how many seconds it took before one beat your silly ass into tomorrow...LOL!!!!
Be nice Frank. Then you won't have trouble."
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145637
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is three or more greater than two, yes or no?
Do you understand what equal means?
Yes three is greater than 2.

And yes I understand what equal means, do you? It means equal for all, not just people you approve of.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145638
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>Good, I hope that it is reparative therapy time. Take your time. 10 years is the minimum period for a profound change.
i have never required this so i'm unsure of your inclusion other than it being an ignorant insult from you.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145639
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't support marriage because you do not support group marriage.
that wouod be incorrect.

those supporting gay marriage as well as heterosexual marriage support those formats.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145640
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frank Rizzo wrote:
Yes three is greater than 2.
Ergo, polygamists inherently seek GREATER protection of the law for three or more, not equal protection for two.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
And yes I understand what equal means, do you? It means equal for all, not just people you approve of.
You must not understand what equal means if you think you are advancing a rational argument. You have just admitted that polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more persons.

Polygamy is irrelevant to the topic at hand, it is a poorly reasoned tangential argument, and allowing same sex marriage would have absolutely no impact upon existing legislation addressing polygamy.

Consequently, do you actually mean to make an argument for polygamy, or are you merely advancing a rationalization that you errantly think supports your view on the topic at hand?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145641
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a lie at all. I don't support non-existant things like SSM. I support marriage. That's why I entered into one with my husband.
And I haven't said one word either for or against you beloved institution of polygamy, no matter how many times you accuse me of it. The only liar here is you dear.
It's nice that you consider yourself married even though you are not. I think that's wrong and wish you could be actually married. Not because I like you, I don't, you're a mean and nasty malcontent. But because it's the right thing to do. It's too bad you refuse to give equal support to others wishing to marry but denied due to ignorance and bigotry like yours.

Now type me out a long vile pissed off response on why I'm lying, why I don't know arithmetic and all that other stupid nonsense. Be sure to end it with the disclaimer that your position on group marriage is a secret. Spellcheck! YUK!YUK!YUK!

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145642
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's Dan's whole threat cut and pasted complete from his post #144889. It's a threat pure and simple, just the last sentence alone qualifies it not to mention the rest of it.
"Ohhhh Frankie.
That's not a threat. A threat would be direct like telling you I was coming over to your house tonight to smack some sense into you with a Louisville Slugger...LOL!!!
What I gave you was some common sense. You don't go running around talking shit to people you have nothing to do with and hope to get home to a dinner of steak and potatoes without thinking you'll get whomped on one day.
That's common sense Franky not to mention a reminder to be socialble.
As far as the lie about turning you into a pretzel I merely mentioned if you talked to my friends like you do me in here they too might think about giving you a new look.
LOL!!!
Are you that much of a hermit you don't know this????
If you don't believe me go out into a public square and locate some people you don't seem to care for and let them have one of your verbal onslaughts with a first aid kit in one hand and a stopwatch in the other and tell me how many seconds it took before one beat your silly ass into tomorrow...LOL!!!!
Be nice Frank. Then you won't have trouble."
i cannot state i would care to say dan makes a good argument i can see no innert threat contained here. there was no direct mention of him looking to cause you physical or other harm.
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145643
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a lie at all. I don't support non-existant things like SSM. I support marriage. That's why I entered into one with my husband.
And I haven't said one word either for or against you beloved institution of polygamy, no matter how many times you accuse me of it. The only liar here is you dear.
Jonah, are you married to your partner?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145644
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Ergo, polygamists inherently seek GREATER protection of the law for three or more, not equal protection for two.
<quoted text>
You must not understand what equal means if you think you are advancing a rational argument. You have just admitted that polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more persons.
Polygamy is irrelevant to the topic at hand, it is a poorly reasoned tangential argument, and allowing same sex marriage would have absolutely no impact upon existing legislation addressing polygamy.
Consequently, do you actually mean to make an argument for polygamy, or are you merely advancing a rationalization that you errantly think supports your view on the topic at hand?
I can never not be astounded by the ridiculous statement you always make that polygamists, being more than two, don't merit equal protection.

What about a whole race of people. Lets take a small race, for example Eskimos, there are less than 100,000 of them. They don't deserve equal protection of the law because they are greater than two? WOW!

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145645
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nice that you consider yourself married even though you are not. I think that's wrong and wish you could be actually married. Not because I like you, I don't, you're a mean and nasty malcontent. But because it's the right thing to do. It's too bad you refuse to give equal support to others wishing to marry but denied due to ignorance and bigotry like yours.
Now type me out a long vile pissed off response on why I'm lying, why I don't know arithmetic and all that other stupid nonsense. Be sure to end it with the disclaimer that your position on group marriage is a secret. Spellcheck! YUK!YUK!YUK!
if you claim to support gay marriage i do not see how you can then in turm claim a same sex married couple is in turn not married in your eyes.

and after reading the posts from jonah1 i think he is correct in his statement in which he laid claim he neither supported or rallied against polygamy so your claim he is holding a form of bigotry against polygamists is then incorrect.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145646
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
i cannot state i would care to say dan makes a good argument i can see no innert threat contained here. there was no direct mention of him looking to cause you physical or other harm.
I ask you, why mention coming to my house and beating me with a baseball bat if it wasn't a threat? What does that have to do with the topic?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145647
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>So, if your gay groups would like to avoid comparisons with rape and pedophilia, stick to gay issues.
Um, there are no comparisons, so I have no need to avoid them.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not a gay issue, it is a man and woman marriage only issue.
Um, marriage is a human issue. And it hasn't been restricted to man and woman only for over a decade now. Please try and keep up.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no comparisons to heterosexuals or blacks. Yet, you do it.
heterosexuals are people, marriage is an institution. Again, no comparison.

And we gays aren't comparing ourselves to blacks you moron, that's just another fundie created talking point.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA is absolutely a homosexual organization.
No, it's a pedophile organization. Two seperate things.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go to their website fool. They are not a pedophile organization, if they were then they would include heterosexuals and females.
I don't need to go to their website fool. Why would an organization called NAMBLA include females? Damn you are stupid. And no where does their organization exclude heterosexuals. Try again assclown.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Globally, so are you an idiot of a fool? NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Association.
Yes, I know, which is why your question about why they won't include females seems retarded.

But I do see your point. Given that, there representation is still 0.00008% of the gay male U.S. population. That better for you? Now, you present some statistics that prove that heterosexuals have a lower rate, ok dear?

Oh, and by the way, there's nothing to indicate that any of the 1100 members of NAMBLA have actually engaged in pedophilia. But don't let that fact get in the way. Here let me help you out.

NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA
NAMBLA

Now,when your finished getting yourself off from reading that let us know.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a gay pedophile ring of over 70,000 gay male pedophiles busted in Scotland and globally.
Yes, of course there was. Got a link to back that up? I remember this story, I don't remember any mention at all about them being gay.

You've been told this ad nauseum. Simply go to any state registry for sex offenders, and your bullshyt is easily debunked. But don't let these facts get in the way of your love for NAMBLA

NAMBLA NAMBLA NAMBLA NAMBLA NAMBLA NAMBLA
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard of NAWGLA? Well, those are the lesbians.
No, I'm not deranged like you. I don't spend my time trying to look for reasons to hate people. I leave that to you fundies. Otherwise I would have to judge you based upon Charles Manson. After all, you're both heteroseuxals. Or maybe I would have to judge you based upon the BTK Killer. He was straight to. Or I'd have to judge all straight women on Jenna Jameson and assume they are all porn stars. Sorry Dr. NAMBLA lover, but I'm not unhinged like you.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you a member of the IGLA
No, I'm not a member if the International Girls Lacrosse Association. Why do you ask?
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
or a LGBT chapter?
LBGT is an anacrnym, it doesn't have chapters fool.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, well then you must not be part of the LGBT.
It doens't have "members" fool.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA represents over 500,000 gay men
No, it doesn't. It doesn't represent gay men, it represents male pedophiles both gay and straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_M...

But don't let facts get in the way of your creepy obsession with a pedophile group. Says a lot about you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145648
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>Here you gays go again, with the gay penguin lies. You all tried this with Roy and Silo. Even when you gay liars discovered that Roy and Silo were not gay, you still continued to tell that lie in a children's book about the two straight penguins alleging they were gay.
Yawn. Bruno isn't gay fool, he's an anti-gay bigot like you. He also happens to have stated publically here that he believed that penguins could fly and that's how they made it to Noah's imaginary ark.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now you are admitting that gays are innately rapist, into necrophilia and pedophilia.
Where was that admission. Please cut and paste it. Damn fundies, all liars.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you get the chicken and chicken hawk reference from penguins?
Your link:
"Some of the things he noticed profoundly shocked him," Russell said. For instance, Levick noted the penguins' autoerotic tendencies, and the seemingly aberrant behavior of young unpaired males and females, including necrophilia, sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks, non-procreative sex and homosexual behaviors."
Damn you are stupid. Next time actually read the article and you might not appear to be such a joke.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, all gays and lesbians are into aberrant behavior such as necrophilia, sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks, non-procreative sex and homosexual behaviors.
The article didn't restrict these actions to the gay penguins, it noted them in all. So I guess you fundie heteros are right there too.

People aren't penguins fool.
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the admission, we will be sure to reference the article, when we post that gays are pedophile.
As noted before, Bruno admitted nothing, and he is just as much an anti-gay bigot as you are. Maybe next time if you actually read before shooting your mouth off you wouldn't make such an assclown of yourself.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145649
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask you, why mention coming to my house and beating me with a baseball bat if it wasn't a threat? What does that have to do with the topic?
i did not read it that way. i read it as if he was trying to show you the difference as to what was an actual threat and what was not.

i can understand the anger on your behalf given some of dan's language is borderline but he did not cross the boundary of actually threatening you.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145650
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
if you claim to support gay marriage i do not see how you can then in turm claim a same sex married couple is in turn not married in your eyes.
and after reading the posts from jonah1 i think he is correct in his statement in which he laid claim he neither supported or rallied against polygamy so your claim he is holding a form of bigotry against polygamists is then incorrect.
Jonah1 lives in Georgia unfortunately Georgia doesn't recognize his out of state (Connecticut) marriage. So he's not really married. Also unfortunately at present the federal government doesn't consider him married either. This is wrong as I've said many times, his marriage should be just as valid as any traditional marriage.

Jonah1 doesn't support polygamy it's easy to see that. He doesn't want to admit it because he's just smart enough to see the hypocrisy. If he supported it, why would he be so angry with me?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145651
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't support marriage because you do not support group marriage.
Where did I state that? What post please.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145652
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask you, why mention coming to my house and beating me with a baseball bat if it wasn't a threat? What does that have to do with the topic?
i forgot to mention i was not sure how the forum was taken in this direction. if dan is actually continuing this posture i would merely ignore his posts and stay with the topic at hand.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145653
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jonah1 lives in Georgia unfortunately Georgia doesn't recognize his out of state (Connecticut) marriage. So he's not really married. Also unfortunately at present the federal government doesn't consider him married either. This is wrong as I've said many times, his marriage should be just as valid as any traditional marriage.
Jonah1 doesn't support polygamy it's easy to see that. He doesn't want to admit it because he's just smart enough to see the hypocrisy. If he supported it, why would he be so angry with me?
i was unaware of this. that same sex couples married in connecticut residing in georgia would not be seen as married in that state. thank you for the clarification.

but if jonah1 did not advise he was against polygamy why then would you assume he is?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••

Cupertino News Video

•••
•••

Cupertino Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Cupertino People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Cupertino News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Cupertino
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••