Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,172

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
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#145994 Jun 15, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays, just like infertile people, don't prevent others from procreating. Buy a clue Cletus.
Of course they don't prevent others from procreating, moron. Where in the formulas I provided showed "x + y = z" or "y + x = z" affected the outcome of "x + x =/= z" & "y + y =/=z"? LOL Dumbass gay

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145995 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
Plus I find it hilarious how saying "y +y =/= z" & "x + x =/= z" is considered "bigotry" when in fact it is TRUE. It takes a man & a woman to create a child, not man/man & woman/woman. I'm sorry you find facts to be "hate speech".
I love it when bigoted idiots offer such arguments.

Is procreation a prerequisite for, or requirement of, marriage?
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#145996 Jun 15, 2012
ussurf wrote:
If you pick religion out of politics you are left with the constitution.
According to the laws in America, gays have the right to marry.According to the religious right, gays no not have the right to marry.
The problem here is in voting for tea party activist.
Stay to the left and you will maintain your constitutional right to marry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =WbhcsQ4trK4XX&feature=rel ated
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...†
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...†
http://www.youtube.com/results...http://www.y...
My advice to Liberals: You are free to choose the side you want. But don't condemn those whom you disagree with for "hate speech". If you can't handle the criticism, then stay out of the political discussions, otherwise we will vote you back in the closet
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#145997 Jun 15, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when bigoted idiots offer such arguments.
Is procreation a prerequisite for, or requirement of, marriage?
No, I just know it takes a man & woman to make a baby

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145998 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
No, I just know it takes a man & woman to make a baby
Does it take a baby to make a legal marriage? If not, your argument is on the rocks.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#145999 Jun 15, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it take a baby to make a legal marriage? If not, your argument is on the rocks.
98% of human population still agrees marriage is defined as a union between a man & a woman.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#146000 Jun 15, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it take a baby to make a legal marriage? If not, your argument is on the rocks.
Majority of heterosexuals married couple actually do have kids. So your pseudo-marriage still fails.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#146001 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
98% of human population still agrees marriage is defined as a union between a man & a woman.
Translation, you were making an inept point that you cannot support.
thisGuy wrote:
Majority of heterosexuals married couple actually do have kids. So your pseudo-marriage still fails.
THE majority of heterosexual marriages fail. 68%, in fact, will fail.

So, your idiotic notions about marriage are far from apt. Do you have any legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection of the law to same sex couples as mandated by the 14th Amendment, which would render your argument relevant?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146002 Jun 15, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Can you keep up and then explain why anyone needs to keep up. You made your spill about Romney, but somehow that made a difference and we all know how he feels bout marriage.
I didn't make a spill about Romney, I made a spill about Brian_G and those like him that opposed Romney for months because he's a Morman, but now back him completely because they don't have a choice. How hypocritical they are, and how they lack any semblance of integrity.

Perhaps next time you should read the post I'm responding to before diving in like an idiot.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#146003 Jun 15, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation, you were making an inept point that you cannot support.
<quoted text>
THE majority of heterosexual marriages fail. 68%, in fact, will fail.
So, your idiotic notions about marriage are far from apt. Do you have any legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection of the law to same sex couples as mandated by the 14th Amendment, which would render your argument relevant?
"Translation, you were making an inept point that you cannot support."
-REAL Translation: You're gay marriage is about as pointless as boys who fuck dogs, & moms who fall in with their 8 yrs old daughters.

"So, your idiotic notions about marriage are far from apt. Do you have any legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection of the law to same sex couples as mandated by the 14th Amendment, which would render your argument relevant?"
-Yeah I do! What's next? You're gonna marry your dog? Your 12 yrs old adopted son? Or your toaster? It's disgusting, like homosexuality.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#146004 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
-REAL Translation: You're gay marriage is about as pointless as boys who fuck dogs, & moms who fall in with their 8 yrs old daughters.
Wow, that was short, yet pointless. Do you have a valid argument? Bestiality and incest are already illegal, homosexuality by the way is not, and there is a legitimate state interest served by such restrictions. Can you indicate any such legitimate state interest served y denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would make your argument a) valid, and b) constitutional? I donít think you do.
thisGuy wrote:
-Yeah I do! What's next? You're gonna marry your dog? Your 12 yrs old adopted son? Or your toaster? It's disgusting, like homosexuality.
Wow, you really arenít that bright, are you?

A dog, a 12 year old, and a toaster each have one thing in common; do you know what that is? Each lack the ability to grant legal consent, and none can enter into a legal contract.

Do you have a rational argument for your position?

Oh, and I think it is simply precious that it took you multiple posts to respond. What's the matter, can't take the time to compose a rational thought?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146005 Jun 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
You shoot in the wrong direction, can't miss a target by more.
The gay twirl that "children are not a requirement of marriage" is the 'concept'.
I simply point out that children ARE a part of 96% of marriages.
You have no argument for that reality, so you try to change the issue, which also exposes your character.
The "issue" is that it's not a requirement of marriage. The only one trying to change the issue is the dipshyt who keeps stating fake statistics about 96%, as if that somehow alters the facts.

You state, "I simply point out that children ARE a part of 96% of marriages. You have no argument.....". Um, we don't need one. You've presented nothing that needs to be argued. Because what you presented doesn't challenge the FACT that children aren't required.

The fact, and the issue, are that, even if 99.9% of marriages produced children, it would still not be a requirement, and therefore is completely irrlevant in a discussion about marriage. Of course you already know this, but you are completely incapable of producing a valid state interest in denying gay people marriage equality so you just repeat the same bullshyt over and over and over. You remind me of the pigeon that wanted to play chess. I flew down on the board, flapped its wings and knocked off all the pieces, then shyt on the board flying off screaching "I won, I won".

Marriages that don't produce children, be they 1% or 50%, are no less marriages in the eyes of the federal government, or your god for that matter. These marriages are accorded no fewer rights because the two married individuals do not procreate. But don't let these facts stop you from bringing it up ad nauseum as if you have something to say that hasn't been addressed and debunked day in and day out. Baseless repetition is the sin qua non of those that have no real arguement or platform.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#146006 Jun 15, 2012
Ah, you lefties love equality, even when it's not true. Right = left. Love = lust. Truth = lies. Common sense = stupidity. Women = men. Homosexual = straight. Two daddies = two mommies = one dad and one mommy. Muslim countries = Christian countries. Single parent family = traditional family.

ROFL

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#146007 Jun 15, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Texas paper wasn't a valid "study". It lacked the methodology to qualify.
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
Released on 08AUG12 it's been shredded by peer review.
Anyone with even a basic research methodology course can see flaws right off the mark.
The more you know the more you can see, and the more you know how to see.
Those are the same 'peers' who said every previous now debunked study 'proved' the opposite, right?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146008 Jun 15, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Texas paper wasn't a valid "study". It lacked the methodology to qualify.
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
Released on 08AUG12 it's been shredded by peer review.
Anyone with even a basic research methodology course can see flaws right off the mark.
The more you know the more you can see, and the more you know how to see.
KiMare knows this already, but has nothing else so he just likes to resort back to his pretend land.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146009 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they don't prevent others from procreating,
If you know this, then why is it the crux of your "argument"? Now you just made yourself sound even stupider.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#146010 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
"So, your idiotic notions about marriage are far from apt. Do you have any legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection of the law to same sex couples as mandated by the 14th Amendment, which would render your argument relevant?"
-Yeah I do! What's next? You're gonna marry your dog? Your 12 yrs old adopted son? Or your toaster? It's disgusting, like homosexuality.
I'll bet you really imagined yourself as actually having a rational argument here, but you don't. You haven't answered the question of what is the compelling state interest served by denying the right to marry to those who wish to marry the same sex. Sorry, your irrational paranoia of "what's next" doesn't qualify. Besides, you f*cking imbecile, the state has a compelling interest served in keeping marriage as a consensual agreement between the parties. Dogs, toasters and little kids can't provide that consent, moron. Are you this much of an irrational idiot when discussing every subject or are you reserving such abject stupidity just for us?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146011 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
98% of human population still agrees marriage is defined as a union between a man & a woman.
I love that you fundies think you can just make up statistics. Nothing demonstrates your complete lack of integrity more than made up statistics!

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_o...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-...

Oh, and the majority of the educated human population is also aware that when gays get married, marriage is not magically somehow no longer between men and women still. That's just more nonsense rhetoric from those that can't find a real argument to support their pre-existing prejudices.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#146012 Jun 15, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Majority of heterosexuals married couple actually do have kids. So your pseudo-marriage still fails.
You didn't answer the question. Typical of those tap dancing around in their own bullshyt!
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#146013 Jun 15, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, that was short, yet pointless. Do you have a valid argument? Bestiality and incest are already illegal, homosexuality by the way is not, and there is a legitimate state interest served by such restrictions. Can you indicate any such legitimate state interest served y denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would make your argument a) valid, and b) constitutional? I donít think you do.
<quoted text>
Wow, you really arenít that bright, are you?
A dog, a 12 year old, and a toaster each have one thing in common; do you know what that is? Each lack the ability to grant legal consent, and none can enter into a legal contract.
Do you have a rational argument for your position?
Oh, and I think it is simply precious that it took you multiple posts to respond. What's the matter, can't take the time to compose a rational thought?
"Can you indicate any such legitimate state interest served y denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would make your argument a) valid, and b) constitutional?"
-Sure! Gay marriage isn't part of the Constitution LOL

"Wow, you really arenít that bright, are you?"
-Depends on how stupid you are.

"A dog, a 12 year old, and a toaster each have one thing in common; do you know what that is? Each lack the ability to grant legal consent, and none can enter into a legal contract."
-So no restrictions as long as consensual? Sounds like a good excuse to legal marriage between a person & a pet or a person & child. ROFL.

"Do you have a rational argument for your position?"
-Yes. Pets & children love their [adopted] parents/owners. I can see Gays (Sexual perverts) trying to take that "love" to a whole new level with sexual child abuse & animal cruelty...ROFL

"Oh, and I think it is simply precious that it took you multiple posts to respond. What's the matter, can't take the time to compose a rational thought?"
-What rational thought? That Gays are perverts? Gee, I already knew that!...ROFL

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.

Grass Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is it Time to Replace Sheriff Bonner? Dec 10 digley 4
Linden High School remembers Pearl Harbor Dec 7 SHlTWORMDAEGUDEBD... 3
Patient blacklisting happens (Jul '06) Nov 30 Grady Henderson 31
Review: DI Pietro Windy Noreen MFT Oct '14 Melonnee Desiree ... 1
Shooting in Sacramento and Auburn Oct '14 Cncrnd 1
Review: No Problem Oct '14 GoldCountry Roofing 1
Allan Dunnam (Apr '12) Oct '14 braless 3
Grass Valley Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grass Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grass Valley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grass Valley

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:37 am PST