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 6,434)

Showing posts 128,661 - 128,680 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144815
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is impossible to walk on water. I don't know who "Dr. Demented" is or what the hell you are talking about.
As far as "sides" go, I am not against same sex marriage. So I guess I am unfortunately on "your side".
BTW Jesus walked on water YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144816
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to be under the impression that dan's post have some specifics that could be addressed. They don't.
You seem to be under the impression that I addressed Dan's posts. I didn't.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144817
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>You leave Bruno out of this. The poor guy just sits in his back yard waiting for a flock to fly over head. Its all to sad.YUK!YUK!YUK!
Like I said, a difference in sense of humor. I don't think someone not knowing penguins can't fly is funny at all. I bet you didn't know they couldn't fly either. Be honest now.

But cows full of bullshit? Now that's funny! YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144818
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Sweet water walker!
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144819
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>BTW Jesus walked on water YUK!YUK!YUK!
No he didn't. You'd believe anything, even that Dan is sincere! YUK!YUK!YUK!

P.S. Get your own laugh you jackass. Copying me is flattering and all, but you're embarrassing yourself. YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144820
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you know him, The Doctor, Judge Monitor hell he has had at least 50 nics.
Now as far as you being on " your side". I find that rather hard to believe. You see you keep bringing polygamy into the conversation and the topic is same sex marriage. YUK!YUK!YUK!
Polygamy? That's off topic. I didn't bring it up, you did.

Once again, imitation is the best form of flattery, love the laugh but you really should get your own, what do you really want to be like me so bad? YUK!YUK!YUK!

I don't care if you are paranoid about what side I am on. I don't care what side you are on, you are a jackass regardless. That's what you don't seem to understand. YUK!YUK!YUK

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144821
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

KiMare wrote:
http://www.psychologytoday.com /blog/the-human-beast/200906/d o-parents-favor-natural-childr en-over-adopted-ones
"According to Gibson, the likely reason that parents invested more in the adopted children was that they needed more help - possibly for genetic reasons. Adopted children did worse in school, had more problems with alcohol and drug addiction, had more arrests, and were more likely to receive welfare.
Evidently, parents invest more in adopted children not because they favor them but because they need more help."
Hardly a reason to celebrate adoption, is it.
Why not? The article states that adoptive parents often give extra attention to adoptive children because many times they need it. How did that magically become "hardly a reason to celebrate adoption"? Did the article state that this extra attention was harmful to possible non-adoptive children in the same family? Nope. Did the article state that this extra attention was harmful to the adopted child? Nope. Please, do elaborate on how the statement you have pulled out of the article establishes that adoption is hardly worth celebrating.
KiMare wrote:
Every culture knows that blood is thicker than water.
Hopefully those within these made up cultures of yours that feel this way aren't adopting children.
KiMare wrote:
Always has been, always will be.
Uh huh. Whatever you say. Unfortunately for you there are hundreds of thousands of adopted children that know better than you. They know that they are seen as equal in the eyes of their "parents" and "family". They don't have to question whether they are seen as "lesser" just because some assclown like yourself would like to try and make them feel differently. You see, adopted children that have true loving families don't have a reason to question things just because bigots like you wish that they would.
KiMare wrote:
Now Jonah, tell me why a gay couple would DELIBERATELY birth a child apart from one gender and one parent?
Gays have children for the same reasons straight people deliberately decide to create or adopt children. Anything else I can clear up for you bigot?

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144822
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, a difference in sense of humor. I don't think someone not knowing penguins can't fly is funny at all. I bet you didn't know they couldn't fly either. Be honest now.
But cows full of bullshit? Now that's funny! YUK!YUK!YUK!
Ummm yes Frank I am and have been aware of the fact that penguins can not fly, they do how ever swim very well. And yes Frank there are a number of birds that can not fly.

The problem is Bruno thinks that penguins FLEW to the Middle East to board Noah's big azz boat. Son that's two strikes in one swing.

As usual Frank, you're full of male bovine excrement.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144823
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be under the impression that I addressed Dan's posts. I didn't.
I'm under the impression that you agree with dan here protecting gays from something, i guess his feelings of the past.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144824
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy? That's off topic. I didn't bring it up, you did.
Once again, imitation is the best form of flattery, love the laugh but you really should get your own, what do you really want to be like me so bad? YUK!YUK!YUK!
I don't care if you are paranoid about what side I am on. I don't care what side you are on, you are a jackass regardless. That's what you don't seem to understand. YUK!YUK!YUK
Umm no sugarnipples you keeps saying that if Gay people should be allowed marriage then you should be able to have multiple wives, equality.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144825
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy? That's off topic. I didn't bring it up, you did.
Once again, imitation is the best form of flattery, love the laugh but you really should get your own, what do you really want to be like me so bad? YUK!YUK!YUK!
I don't care if you are paranoid about what side I am on. I don't care what side you are on, you are a jackass regardless. That's what you don't seem to understand. YUK!YUK!YUK
Now now sugarnipples don't get into a snit. Perhaps Bruno will let you sit next to him.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144826
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Umm no sugarnipples you keeps saying that if Gay people should be allowed marriage then you should be able to have multiple wives, equality.
There you go again. Polygamy is off topic.

"sugarnipples"? YUCK! Keep your perversions to yourself, they are gross and totally inappropriate. This is a discussion forum on same sex marriage, not a dating site.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144827
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be honest Jonah. You aren't shy talking about sex, are you?
Not at all. But let's be honest KiMare, the only ones inititating discussion of sex are you fundies. And let's be honest that its a FACT that our sex is none of your business. And let's be honest that it is unnatural for someone to be thinking about the sex that other people have, and to inititate public discussions about other people's sex. Let's also be honest that you, and other fundies like you, aren't entitled to have any sort of opinion on other peoples sex.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is, when we get past "two committed people" regarding marriage, you and your partner are left behind.
We are? How's that dear? First of all, why are we "getting past two committed people"? Secondly, how are we somehow magically "left behind"? Goodness you sure are full of unsupported rhetoric.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear. I WILL bring up sex when describing marriage.
Let's be clear. Even if you do, it's still completely irrelevant and none of your business.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What is obscene and incredibly offensive is to even begin to equate the perversion of anal sex with intercourse.
What is obscene is your believe that you have insight into what other people do sexually, that you are entitled to judge them based upon your assumptions, and that you think you get to decide what type of intercourse is perverse or not. Guess what hon, you DON'T decide that. And millions of straight people engaging in anal sex on a regular basis will be happy to tell you that you don't get to label their sex either. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If anal sex doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. Outside of that, you don't get a say.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But you know that, that is why you desperately want to change the subject.
Completely untrue. I know that anal sex is completely natural. I don't have your ridiculous "value system" of what sex is ok and what sex isn't. You see, I'm well aware that any sex that is safe and being entered into consentually by adults is quite ok. Completely natural. Not perverse in any way. Please bitch, do not attempt to assume what I know.

As for changing the subject, I have never shied away from it. I've simply noted how irrelevant it is, and how creepy it is that people like you keep wanting to bring it up. You want to continue discussing it, I'll continue discussing it. "Desperately want to change the subject"!!! Damn you are stupid.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets not play games.
Then stop initiating them fool.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple that can never have kids doesn't feel bad about it?
Not one bit. Not even a tiny smidgion. Would we like to be able to? Possibly. But "feel bad about it"? Not at all. You see, we don't carry around your bigotry dear. And we don't pretend that those that can procreate together are somehow elevated to a status of being "more important" or "better". That type of bigotry is all yours bitch.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that's silly stupid to say otherwise, don't you?
No, I don't know that's silly stupid, given that the value system you are trying to shove on me is yours, and not mine.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets not twirl facts.
Does that mean that you will be presenting some soon? So far all you've done is throw out your assumptions and poorly preconcieved conclusions.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144828
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
Umm no sugarnipples you keeps saying that if Gay people should be allowed marriage then you should be able to have multiple wives, equality.
1 man + 1 woman = 2 persons
1 man + 1 man = 2 persons
1 woman + 1 woman = 2 persons
1 man = 2 women = 3 persons
1 man or woman = 3 or more men or women > 2 persons

Why can't those against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry count?

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144829
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Polygamy is off topic.
"sugarnipples"? YUCK! Keep your perversions to yourself, they are gross and totally inappropriate. This is a discussion forum on same sex marriage, not a dating site.
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Sugarnipples, if you are all in favor of same sex marrige just say so. Don't add any thing to it just say "I support gay people in thier quest for same sex marriage"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144830
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
Sugarnipples,
Translation, I have nothing intelligent to contribute, so I will employ utterly absurd and infantile name calling to warn you that the rest of my post has little to no point.
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
if you are all in favor of same sex marrige just say so.
I regularly have, as have others here.
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
Don't add any thing to it just say "I support gay people in thier quest for same sex marriage"
I support the US Constitution, and it's guarantee that states may not make laws abridging the rights of US citizens, as well as it's mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of their laws.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144831
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No one needs to say children are a "requirement", they are a part of 96% of marriages.
Um, yes we DO apparently need to say that children are not a requirement of marriage. Because dolts like you think that because 96% of marriages have children, that it someone magically translates something about the 4% of marriages that don't have children. Bottom line is deary, children are NOT a requirement of marriage, regardless of what made up percentage of marriages have them.

Children will NEVER be a requirement of marriage. No matter how many time you present them, try and flop around about where they come from, or insinuate how some families are magically better than others based upon your personal prejudices.

Children are NOT a requirement of marriage and never will be. Suck on that bitch, cause it ain't gonna change.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Who gives a gay couple the right to demand they not be considered?
Where on earth did a gay couple damnd this? Oh, that's right, they never did. You just love to try and paint gays in some made up negative light so you think you can spout this nonsense propaganda and go unchallenged. Typical of bigots.

We've never said that children shouldn't be considered. What we've said is that they aren't a requirement of marriage. That's a fact. One that isn't changing. "Requirement" and "consideration" are two completely different words. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

Hell, let's just do it your way. Where on earth did fundies get the right to demand that children be a consideration of marriage? LOL! Putz.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially since offspring are a part of 0%(ZERO) of gay couples, right?
Um, are you under the impression that this fact somehow alters how irrelevant child bearing is to the institution of marriage? Um, dear, it doesn't. Child bearing within the couple married is not a requirement. Whether they can or can't reproduce together, or simply choose not to, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not deny reality.
We aren't. You are. No matter how much space you waste typing out your condescending and intentionally aggitative nonsense, the REALITY is.....children are not a requirement of marriage. Never will be. The only one having a hard time with reality is you.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No one tops birth parents.
Millions of adopted children around the world would argue differently. Their experience trumps your bigotry.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially in the eyes of the child.
And yet, you rant on without even asking the children what is in their eyes. You simply assume you know.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you really say a adoptive parent equates to your parents?
I don't make ridiculous equations like that bitch. I say that all parents stand on their own, and trying to value them, or evaluate them, based on one factor is something that only bigots do.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144832
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1 man + 1 woman = 2 persons
1 man + 1 man = 2 persons
1 woman + 1 woman = 2 persons
1 man = 2 women = 3 persons
1 man or woman = 3 or more men or women > 2 persons
Why can't those against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry count?
Well as I have said before. If a man for some strange reason feels the need to have multiple wives( why that is I can not fathom). Then that person/persons should petition the court to have the law changed. Same thing goes for a woman who wishes more than one husband.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144833
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jonah, you can say it over and over all you want. You can stamp your feet and scream "fundie". You can twirl the facts till everyone throws up.
You and your partner are the 'Gay Emperors' who EVERYONE knows are not married.
No dear, my HUSBAND and I most certainly are married. That's a fact. It is you and your fellow butt obsessed fundies that can twirl, stamp your feen and scream all you want. You can post your bigoted condescending bullshyt all you want. Ain't gonna change a thing.

Sucks to be a bigot fundie in 2012.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144834
Jun 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
Denied divorce, some same-sex couples 'wed-locked'
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/living/same-sex...
Can't get a divorce if you've never been married...
They can get a divorce you nitwit, just not in Maryland. Since they can get a divorce, they are married.

Damn you are stupid.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 128,661 - 128,680 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.

•••
•••

San Clemente News Video

•••
•••

San Clemente Jobs

•••
•••
•••

San Clemente People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••