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 (Page 6,617)

Showing posts 132,321 - 132,340 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149235
Jul 7, 2012
 
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Creepy.
You like that word, huh?

Ever thought of expanding your vocabulary? Otherwise you sound childish and silly stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149236
Jul 7, 2012
 
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? The same can be said for women's equality. What's your point?
<quoted text>
Not so. Women's equality has been established in many cultures. Even dominated/s some.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he was stupid for asking why the majority of the planet isn't entering into same gender marriages. It's quite a stupid question, and the fact that you are defending it shows you're just as stupid.
You didn't comprehend the statement again... I am amazed you didn't even question your understanding of such a silly thought!

Let me school you (AGAIN). GLBT has been about 4% of the population throughout history. At some point, it would be expected that gay 'marriage' would arise (it did, but always only briefly), establish itself in a culture and spread to others. Other than our current example, which is too soon to judge, it NEVER has. Marriage, on the other hand, has always been present. Quite a distinction (AGAIN).

PS I really wasn't surprised you misread.

Smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149237
Jul 7, 2012
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response was SO stupid I knew anyone with half a brain would laugh and you wouldn't be able to understand why.
Every person has a mother and father. Yes, they may be dead, but they still had a mother and father.
No, they don't. Mother and Father are both DEFINED by parenting.(We know how you love proper definitions) There are many children that do not have a mother or a father.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, every single type of relationship that exists is birthed by a mother and father. No other relationship accomplishes that. It is one of the incredible distinctions of marriage.
1) Complete and utter bullshyt
2) Completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed.

Tell me KiMare, how is the relationship I have with my mailman birthed by a mother and father?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your partner and you will never be the biological birthplace of a single relationship.
I don't have a partner, I have a husband. And no, we weren't the biological birhtplace "togther". Nor were we required to be. And unlike bigots like you, we don't concern ourselves with such trifle facts. Like hundredds of thousands of straight, infertile, adoptive and seregated parents, we didn't let the fact that we weren't able to procreate "together" get in the way of us creating a loving and stable family together. We were quite able to have the children that we wanted without being able to procreate "together". Your belief that such a petty comment is in some way a revelation, or an insult is solely in your bigoted little head.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not have a partner if each of you did not have a mother and father.
I don't have a partner, I have a husband. The state trumps your opinion on the matter. And no, I wouldn't have him, if sperm and egg didn't gestate. He was raised by an adoptive father bitch, who had nothing to do with creating him. Not that it's important in any way. And amazingly his mom and his REAL dad, not his biological sperm doner, were able to marry despite the fact they weren't the "biological birthplace" you seem to think is of some importance. Chomp on that c*nt.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been schooled.
Again.
Not in the slightest whore.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149238
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, that's not the reason at all. You know those studies are BS.
No, you just wish they were. You look for anyway you can to debunk them, and you can't.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I just posted a exposure of them AND a real study. 3000 people in 7 different family types.
You posted a study that indicated further study is needed. Nothing more. And you certainly didn't post a study that confirmed any of the "harm" and "danger" you keep lying about. You're at the end of your rope chickenshyt.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Smile (you'll feel better).
I'm not in any need to feel better. I feel great already. Exposing lying sacks of shyt like you is a real booster to my day.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149239
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, that's not the reason at all.
I love that you think you have magical insight into my reasoning. Your hubris is typical of fundamentalist nincumpoops.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149240
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A discriminatory piece of legislation called "The Defense of Marriage Act". It's a piece of legislation that conservatives rushed to get pused into law because they recognized that the marriages of gay people were inevitable based upon our Consitutional guarantee to equality. They didn't like that so they created a discriminatory law to redefine marriage as solely being between a man and a woman. They redefined marriage since the existing definition didn't suit their discriminatory purposes. It's sort of the Jim Crow law of our era. And like all unconsitituional laws, it will be struck down. Any other stupid questions that you think will defend your bigotry?
<quoted text>
In this case the definition was changed in order to CREATE the law. As I said, unconsitutional.
What else you got hon? LOL!!!
<quoted text>
I didn't prove that at all. I proved your a whack job religitard.
How's that whole "redefinition" argument working for you now hon? LOL!!!! What a tool you are!
Okay, it's school time again tonight. Seriously, you are going to have to start paying me. And I don't come cheap!

DOMA was a response to gays trying to dumb down the definition of marriage TO CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ALREADY DEFINED MARRIAGE. A definition that keeps gay couples distinct.

In fact, the SCOTUS had already determined marriage was a right BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCREATION IN MARRIAGE FOR ALL OF SOCIETY!

I hate to capitalize so much, but I'm simply trying to get through the fog. I'm sure you have run into that response before.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149241
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who tried to equate gay unions with marriage? I didn't. I've equated marriages with marriages.
Every single time a state has voted on equating gay unions with marriage it has been rejected.

Apparently your definition of 'normal' is as accurate as your definition of 'marriage'...

And that would apply to the rest of your post.

Smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149242
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. Women's equality has been established in many cultures. Even dominated/s some.
I wasn't talking about some. I was talking about all. After all, that's what you were talking about in relationship to gays being married. Why so decietful?

Oh, and you didn't answer the question...."so what"?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't comprehend the statement again... I am amazed you didn't even question your understanding of such a silly thought!
Let me school you (AGAIN). GLBT has been about 4% of the population throughout history. At some point, it would be expected that gay 'marriage' would arise (it did, but always only briefly), establish itself in a culture and spread to others. Other than our current example, which is too soon to judge, it NEVER has. Marriage, on the other hand, has always been present. Quite a distinction (AGAIN).
PS I really wasn't surprised you misread.
Smile.
It is obvious that you need to invest in a dictionary. You might want to look up the word "shooling" because it's obvious you don't know how to employ it.

GLTB has been 4% throughout history? Prove it. Sounds to me again like your just pulling percentages out of your rotundous ass.

Why would your scenerio be "expected"? Nope, just more made up bullshyt. Oh, and you might want to read Penguin Boy's original quote again. He specifically was asking why all the straight people aren't entering into SSM, an entity that doesn't even exist.

Oh, and "marriage" hasn't "always existed". In your fantasy land of Adam an Eve it may have, but here in the real world it was an institution created by man late into his exitence. It was meant to keep property within a family and the wifes were property of the husband.

Since you seem to like distinctions though, here's one for you. Marriage still exits, and gays are entering into them. They have been for over a decade now. The exact same institution that straight people enter into. Not a damned thing you can do to change that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149243
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they don't. Mother and Father are both DEFINED by parenting.(We know how you love proper definitions) There are many children that do not have a mother or a father.
<quoted text>
1) Complete and utter bullshyt
2) Completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
Tell me KiMare, how is the relationship I have with my mailman birthed by a mother and father?
<quoted text>
I don't have a partner, I have a husband. And no, we weren't the biological birhtplace "togther". Nor were we required to be. And unlike bigots like you, we don't concern ourselves with such trifle facts. Like hundredds of thousands of straight, infertile, adoptive and seregated parents, we didn't let the fact that we weren't able to procreate "together" get in the way of us creating a loving and stable family together. We were quite able to have the children that we wanted without being able to procreate "together". Your belief that such a petty comment is in some way a revelation, or an insult is solely in your bigoted little head.
<quoted text>
I don't have a partner, I have a husband. The state trumps your opinion on the matter. And no, I wouldn't have him, if sperm and egg didn't gestate. He was raised by an adoptive father bitch, who had nothing to do with creating him. Not that it's important in any way. And amazingly his mom and his REAL dad, not his biological sperm doner, were able to marry despite the fact they weren't the "biological birthplace" you seem to think is of some importance. Chomp on that c*nt.
<quoted text>
Not in the slightest whore.
fa·ther/&#712;fäT&#863 ;H&#601;r/
Noun:
A man in relation to his natural child or children.
Verb:
Be the father of: "he fathered three children".
Synonyms:
noun. dad - papa - parent - sire - pater - daddy - progenitor
verb. beget - procreate - originate - breed - generate - sire

moth·er/&#712;m&#601;T &#863;H&#601;r/
Noun:
A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth.
Verb:
Bring up (a child) with care and affection: "the art of mothering".
Synonyms:
mama - mamma - parent - mom - ma - mum - mummy

Damn I love definitions!

Kind of blows up your whole response right at the get-go doesn't it?

Smile.

PS(I bet your mailman has a father and mother)

BIG smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149244
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You like that word, huh?
Don't like or dislike it. It's a word, and it fits the circumstance. No need for a different word when one that exists already works. Sort of like the word "marriage".
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever thought of expanding your vocabulary? Otherwise you sound childish and silly stupid.
No, you just wish I sounded childish and silly. The only one that really sounds childish here is the individual that thinks that her repetitious rants about "biologically birthing" are somehow important.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149245
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you just wish they were. You look for anyway you can to debunk them, and you can't.
<quoted text>
You posted a study that indicated further study is needed. Nothing more. And you certainly didn't post a study that confirmed any of the "harm" and "danger" you keep lying about. You're at the end of your rope chickenshyt.
<quoted text>
I'm not in any need to feel better. I feel great already. Exposing lying sacks of shyt like you is a real booster to my day.
I posted a study that exposed the lack of proper method in previous studies (all the ones you referred to but wouldn't specify because you knew they were bogus).

I also posted a study that showed the real, long term results of every family type they could list. There were so few gay couples that were in permanent relationships, the results were statistically insignificant. Most gay relationships are fractured. THAT is why more study is needed.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149246
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, it's school time again tonight. Seriously, you are going to have to start paying me. And I don't come cheap!
DOMA was a response to gays trying to dumb down the definition of marriage TO CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ALREADY DEFINED MARRIAGE. A definition that keeps gay couples distinct.
No hon, DOMA changed the definition of marriage. If marriage had been already defined as "solely between a man and a woman" then DOMA wouldn't have been needed. Damn you are stupid. There WAS NO LAW THAT ALREADY DEFINED MARRIAGE AS SOLELY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!! I love that you are getting snitty!! So fundie of you!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, the SCOTUS had already determined marriage was a right BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCREATION IN MARRIAGE FOR ALL OF SOCIETY!
Yawn. Did SCOTUS limit marriage to only those that procreated? Pssssst, that's a "yes" or "no" question!!!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to capitalize so much, but I'm simply trying to get through the fog. I'm sure you have run into that response before.
Yes, you fundies all have the same responses. You are nothing new or special. What you are too though, is a deceitful piece of shyt who STILL (sorry had to break through the fog) can't establish a valid argument to deny gays marriage!!! Let us know when you can do that. Heck, for that matter, let us know when you can provide a reason that gays shouldn't have children. You certianly do like harping on that one!!!! Oh, and also, let us know when procreation is a mandate for marriage!!!!

You still got nuthin'!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149247
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I love that you think you have magical insight into my reasoning. Your hubris is typical of fundamentalist nincumpoops.
'fundamentalist'?

Why do you keep bring up religion? Logic failing you so you want to focus on your bigotry subject?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149248
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single time a state has voted on equating gay unions with marriage it has been rejected.
Um, no, the state hasn't voted, the people have. And we aren't governed by mob rule. And just like Prop H8, these "votes" will be ruled unconstitutional. Not much you can do about that except gloat on the current victory you've acheived for the moment. It seems to give you comfort.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your definition of 'normal' is as accurate as your definition of 'marriage'...
I don't remember defining "normal". Where did that occur Ms. Deceitful? Which post?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And that would apply to the rest of your post.
Smile.
Aw, poor KiMare, the bitch still has nothing!
DYI wrom bin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149249
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm begging you, list the studies they base that assertion on!!!
Waiting....(ad nauseum)
Hey freak, Are you to busy "researching" the "Little Black Book" and perusing 'rent boy' ads to click the links he already provided?

PS: Try staying in character when you move between persona's.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149250
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted a study that exposed the lack of proper method in previous studies (all the ones you referred to but wouldn't specify because you knew they were bogus).
I also posted a study that showed the real, long term results of every family type they could list. There were so few gay couples that were in permanent relationships, the results were statistically insignificant. Most gay relationships are fractured. THAT is why more study is needed.
And the "danger" and "harm" that you continually post was where?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149252
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'fundamentalist'?
Why do you keep bring up religion? Logic failing you so you want to focus on your bigotry subject?
I didn't bring up religion, I called you a fundamentalist. There's a difference. You aren't a religion. Although from your posts it does seem evident that you think yourself to be a god.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149253
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't talking about some. I was talking about all. After all, that's what you were talking about in relationship to gays being married. Why so decietful?
Oh, and you didn't answer the question...."so what"?
<quoted text>
It is obvious that you need to invest in a dictionary. You might want to look up the word "shooling" because it's obvious you don't know how to employ it.
GLTB has been 4% throughout history? Prove it. Sounds to me again like your just pulling percentages out of your rotundous ass.
Why would your scenerio be "expected"? Nope, just more made up bullshyt. Oh, and you might want to read Penguin Boy's original quote again. He specifically was asking why all the straight people aren't entering into SSM, an entity that doesn't even exist.
Oh, and "marriage" hasn't "always existed". In your fantasy land of Adam an Eve it may have, but here in the real world it was an institution created by man late into his exitence. It was meant to keep property within a family and the wifes were property of the husband.
Since you seem to like distinctions though, here's one for you. Marriage still exits, and gays are entering into them. They have been for over a decade now. The exact same institution that straight people enter into. Not a damned thing you can do to change that.
Honey, I never used the word 'shooling'. Don't think I ever have...

Marriage is simply the human formalization of evolution. The survival of our genes. Your explanation is simply more idiotic gay twirl.

I don't want to needlessly annoy you, so I won't repost it unless you want me to, but you might refer to my "If You" list of clear, factual distinctions between marriage and gay unions.

I really enjoy schooling you tonight. You still have fun too?
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149254
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Like a lot of issues in this country, some take time to correct. Up until the early part of the last century women did not have the right to vote. Until the 1860's slavery was common. Until the 1960's segregation was normal. Yet all have been corrected. Have a nice day.
There is nothing wrong with a heterosexual marriage, therefor nothing hs to be corrected. Got it ???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149255
Jul 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No hon, DOMA changed the definition of marriage. If marriage had been already defined as "solely between a man and a woman" then DOMA wouldn't have been needed. Damn you are stupid. There WAS NO LAW THAT ALREADY DEFINED MARRIAGE AS SOLELY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!! I love that you are getting snitty!! So fundie of you!!
<quoted text>
Yawn. Did SCOTUS limit marriage to only those that procreated? Pssssst, that's a "yes" or "no" question!!!!!
<quoted text>
Yes, you fundies all have the same responses. You are nothing new or special. What you are too though, is a deceitful piece of shyt who STILL (sorry had to break through the fog) can't establish a valid argument to deny gays marriage!!! Let us know when you can do that. Heck, for that matter, let us know when you can provide a reason that gays shouldn't have children. You certianly do like harping on that one!!!! Oh, and also, let us know when procreation is a mandate for marriage!!!!
You still got nuthin'!!!
You are slow...

DOMA was simply keeping the definition from changing.

Gays wouldn't be excluded from marriage if the definition already allowed them...

This isn't even kindergarten logic...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 132,321 - 132,340 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

Other Recent Rancho Cordova Discussions

Search the Rancho Cordova Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 13 min OMFG 15,668
ATTENTION::: Why do black men get mad when beau... (Feb '11) 3 hr ShotgunsReel 75
H! looking for you 9 hr frm_Sea_nohooks 3
Jewish values at heart of immigration reform 10 hr just wondering 247
roger byl 13 hr Aol 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 17 hr Lug Heads 7,300
White Guys: Would you date a black girl? Elaborate (Nov '07) 18 hr White man 5,182
•••
•••
•••
•••

Rancho Cordova Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Rancho Cordova People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••