Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,741

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#154926 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure BS masquarading as women's lib.
-Butch lesbians don't dress for comfort. They dress in men's clothes and styles and take on mannerisms like men.
-You not only sterotype all women in a idiotic and deceitful way, you deny the power of evolution to dictate your behaviors.
I left my sensitivity at the door of denial, which is where gays make the perposterous claim that gay couples are 'exactly the same' as marriage AND as you brought up, horrifically transgres cultural and religious sensitivity.
Nice gay twirl for a straight, but silly stupid with no validation of course.
Grin.
LeaderOfThePack2 wrote:
Oh my such anger! Did my honest answer hit a nerve or blow your theory? Ask a bunch of women why they dress the way they do, 9 out of 10 will tell you the same thing I did! Womens Lib, well yeah duh...welcome to this Century and half of the last one old fart - we don't need you anymore.
You say I am stereotyping women...WTF are you doing? Where is your proof that lesbians dress as men to attract women, source please? Rest assured I know much more about women than you do, I am a woman, remember??? Men can never figure us out! So how much, dear Kimare do you know about how and why women dress and why do you know such things? Oh yeah the lesbian in you...nevermind.
While you say you are a "redeemed cynic and a barbarian"...you quote the Bible frequently. Most likely a fundie! Ummmm you are not allowed to believe in evolution remember, that is evil? We all just came to be, the good book says so!
You are angry about the possibility of gay marriage because you spent your life trying to make your square peg fit...you now question your entire being. I am sorry for you!
Big grin
<quoted text>
I laughed at your 'answer' and I bitch-slapped your hypocrisy about sensitivity.

Interestingly, your statement, "we don't need you anymore" is the natural destination of feminism. Hence you see your daughter doing everything a man and woman can do by herself, and your son playing video games and looking at porn. How is that liberation for you Queen bee?

At the core of everything we do is evolution. A lesbian who makes the effort to dress and act like a man isn't doing it for 'comfort'. Just the negative reactions she experiences certainly would negate that. As one butch blogger put it, "this is just who I am". I believe and accept that. Why are you so afraid of that???

I refer to evolution far more than I do the Bible. I respond to ignorance, distortions and lies about the Bible.'Faith' by it's very essence is unprovable. Why would I try to prove it with faithless people??? I have to admit I also enjoy shoving evolution in the face of people who mock sacred things.

Been married nearly 40 years. We are one, but anyone who knows us still would define her as well rounded and me as square. I don't know how that works, but it does. What doesn't work is trying to put a bent rod in a straight hole.

Anything that can be destroyed by truth should be.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#154927 Aug 15, 2012
Mikhail Prokhorov wrote:
<quoted text>
what hell is this
this man get fist up ass from strangers, yes?
LOL!!!

They keep trying Mikhail, but my sphincter muscle charlie horse is too tight.

Grin.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#154928 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Numbnuts wrote:
<quoted text>
I never gave you "consent" to take away my right to same-sex marriage, so F*CKOFF DIPSH*T.
You have the right to SSM in 8 homo states .. now GO !!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#154929 Aug 15, 2012
Marcia_Marcia_Marcia wrote:
<quoted text>
it is usually how they feel comfortable dressing.. I can wear a dress/skirt and heels but I like to dress comfortable in jeans and a t shirt.
BS

Your real hair color is blonde, isn't it?

Smile.
Hey Numbnuts

Alhambra, CA

#154930 Aug 15, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
You like numbnuts, heh?
Former Milwaukee ACORN employee Kevin L. Clancy (pictured above) was convicted of election fraud a few days ago. Clancy’s conviction brings the total number of convictions for former ACORN workers to at least fifteen so far in 2010.
Clancy entered a guilty plea to playing a part “in a scheme to submit fraudulent voter registration applications,” said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. Clancy acknowledged submitting multiple voter registration applications for the same persons and registering himself and other voter registration canvassers to vote repeatedly while employed at ACORN during the 2008 election cycle.
Clancy earned himself a ten-month stay in the hoosegow for his crime, but it will be a while before he serves that sentence: Clancy’s voter fraud sentence won’t even get underway until he finishes a separate jail term he is currently serving for armed robbery.
The cannot convict someone unless they are caught...numbnuts.
Nobody knows how many were not caught.
But the facts are clear. ACORN is dirty.
Again, you should read your sources--Maybe even your own posts:
Numbnutz said wrote:
<quoted text>
I like numbnuts, heh?
Former Milwaukee ACORN employee Kevin L. Clancy (pictured above) was convicted of election fraud... Clancy entered a guilty plea to playing a part “in a scheme to submit fraudulent voter registration applications,”....
Registering false applications to up your numbers is a different crime than voting under a false name.

Now when you can show that VOTING under a false name is a problem, then you have an argument.

FYI: ACORN is no longer in operation. Not sure why you keep pulling it outta your butt, but there you have it.
Hey OldMare

Alhambra, CA

#154931 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want chicken, you have to have a rooster and a hen.
Smile.
PS Was that hate speech to say that???
If you want a chicken farm, all you need is a bunch of hens and one cock!

There: There's your argument for polygamy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#154932 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Numbnuts wrote:
I never gave you "consent" to take away my right to same-sex marriage, so F*CKOFF DIPSH*T.
Californians never had the 'right' to same sex marriage until Walker's ruling. They took away nothing, you can still go to New York and marry, or ask your church for a same sex marriage ceremony (if they consent).

The issue is redefining marriage for everyone without the consent of the governed. You can tell we are on the right side of this issue by looking at the language our noble opponents use. See the quote above for proof.
Reality

Madison, WI

#154933 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want chicken, you have to have a rooster and a hen.
Smile.
PS Was that hate speech to say that???
Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 to three mothers (one provided the egg, another the DNA and a third carried the cloned embryo to term).[7] She was created using the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer, where the cell nucleus from an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilised oocyte (developing egg cell) that has had its nucleus removed. The hybrid cell is then stimulated to divide by an electric shock, and when it develops into a blastocyst it is implanted in a surrogate mother.[8] Dolly was the first clone produced from a cell taken from an adult mammal. The production of Dolly showed that genes in the nucleus of such a mature differentiated somatic cell are still capable of reverting back to an embryonic totipotent state, creating a cell that can then go on to develop into any part of an animal.[9] Dolly's existence was announced to the public on 22 February 1997.[1] It gained much attention in the media. A commercial with Scottish scientists playing with sheep was aired on TV, and a special report in TIME Magazine featured Dolly the sheep.[10] Science featured Dolly as the breakthrough of the year. Even though Dolly was not the first animal to be cloned, she gained this attention in the media because she was the first to be cloned from an adult cell.[11]

No male in sight..........
Local

Clearlake, CA

#154934 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Numbnuts wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you should read your sources--Maybe even your own posts:
<quoted text>
Registering false applications to up your numbers is a different crime than voting under a false name.
Now when you can show that VOTING under a false name is a problem, then you have an argument.
FYI: ACORN is no longer in operation. Not sure why you keep pulling it outta your butt, but there you have it.
Hey numbnuts...read this.

Minnesota Majority’s Report on Felon Voter Fraud Convictions
Stemming from Minnesota’s 2008 General Election
October 13th, 2011 - Prepared by Dan McGrath
Page 1
Executive Summary

As of August 10th, 2011, 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud
committed in 2008. We believe this is the highest number of voter fraud convictions obtained in any
state for a single election cycle since 1936. In fact, according to a 2006 Justice Department report, there
have been more convictions for voter fraud in Minnesota from just the 2008 election than the DOJ was
able to prosecute over a five year span, nationwide.
While this number may seem a small percentage of the 2,803 suspected ineligible voters originally
submitted to county prosecutors for investigation, there is a wide gap between voting while ineligible and
voting while knowingly ineligible.........
In other words, most of the suspects on Minnesota Majority’s original list did, in fact, vote while ineligible,
but the standard for prosecution in Minnesota is “ineligible voter knowingly votes.” If an ineligible voter
claims not to have known they were breaking the law, it’s difficult for prosecutors to prove otherwise. In
essence, to be convicted of voter fraud, the suspect must generally admit willful, knowing guilt.

http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documen...

The law decided that they would not convict a dummy(public school graduate) who was too stupid to know that they were voting fraudulently.

LMAO
Hey Brian

Alhambra, CA

#154935 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Californians never had the 'right' to same sex marriage until Walker's ruling. They took away nothing, you can still go to New York and marry, or ask your church for a same sex marriage ceremony (if they consent).
The issue is redefining marriage for everyone without the consent of the governed. You can tell we are on the right side of this issue by looking at the language our noble opponents use. See the quote above for proof.
Seriously, Brian,

Just go f*ckoff.

You know damn well that state had marriage equality prior to the passage of Prop 8.

Gawd! You're tedious.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#154936 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Walker disregarded the consent of the governed when he voided their democratic will to impose new marriage law on every Californian.
Most same sex marriage supporters don't care about consent, they want to impose new laws by unelected court decree.
Same sex marriage is bad because they don't care for consent.
That's simply a LIE on your part Brian and ya know it.......Judge Walker didn't disregard ANY consent of the Government or any other procedural process.

Judge Walker also did NOT impose new marriage laws on California.......in fact all he did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Plucker

Azusa, CA

#154937 Aug 15, 2012
Wonder what kind of Chicke Plucker would post there racist and threatening comments on TOPIX?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#154938 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Californians never had the 'right' to same sex marriage until Walker's ruling. They took away nothing, you can still go to New York and marry, or ask your church for a same sex marriage ceremony (if they consent).
The issue is redefining marriage for everyone without the consent of the governed. You can tell we are on the right side of this issue by looking at the language our noble opponents use. See the quote above for proof.
This is a BOGUS lie........Gays and Lesbians had the right to marry when the CSSC ruled in the re Marriage ruling(May 2008). Same-Sex Couples started getting married legally in June of 2008 and continued to get legally married until November 4th, 2008.

My wife and I are celebrating our 4th wedding anniversary tomorrow........18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples have been celebrating their 4th wedding anniversaries as well.

You happen to be on the WRONG side of history and probably come the end of September........Prop 8 will be gone but for a bad memory..........Gays and Lesbians will be getting married again in California before the end of the year!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#154939 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Brian wrote:
Seriously, Brian, Just go f*ckoff.
^^^Most same sex marriage supporters post profanity. That's proof of intellectual bankruptcy.

.
Hey Brian wrote:
You know damn well that state had marriage equality prior to the passage of Prop 8. Gawd! You're tedious.
No, California had an outlaw mayor in San Francisco who, unilaterally issued same sex couples marriage licenses. There was no law passed to permit same sex marriage in California. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

If I'm wrong, cite the California state law that allows same sex marriage, tell us when it was passed and signed by the governor.

We can go over this again, if you like. Patience is a virtue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#154940 Aug 15, 2012
Hey OldMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want a chicken farm, all you need is a bunch of hens and one cock!
There: There's your argument for polygamy.
I've got one wife and a lesbian to handle, your idea makes me a chicken.

LOL
Hey Numbnuts

Alhambra, CA

#154941 Aug 15, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Minnesota Majority’s blah blah blah
So....How many of them actually voted? All your stats point to registering.

What the ratio of false voters versus the overall state?

And remember: The argument is VOTERS.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#154942 Aug 15, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
That's simply a LIE on your part Brian and ya know it.......Judge Walker didn't disregard ANY consent of the Government or any other procedural process.
When he voided the referendum, he disregarded the consent of the governed and the government.

.
RnL2008 wrote:
Judge Walker also did NOT impose new marriage laws on California.......in fact all he did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
In Walker's decision, he ruled: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples..."
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case...

Down with unelected courts imposing law against the will of the majority.
Godfrey

Oroville, CA

#154943 Aug 15, 2012
The Judge that overturned it probably hasn't had any sex in 20 years and when he did it wasn't worth a crap you stupid fools.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#154944 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
No, California had an outlaw mayor in San Francisco who, unilaterally issued same sex couples marriage licenses.
This was done in 2004 by then Mayor Gavin Newsome.......those 4200 marriages were eventually ruled invalid and void by the CSSC in the Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco(2004).

However some couples sued and in May 2008, the CSSC ruled in the re Marriage case that Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 30 days later on June 16,2008@5:01pm, Phyllis Lyon and her partner of 55 years Del Martin FINALLY had the legal marriage they had spent a lifetime fighting for........unfortunately, Del Martin passed away in August of 2008 and never lived long enough to see the battle continue.

Try doing some research on this issue before spouting your BS........today those 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples remain very much legally married in spite of the passage of Prop 8.......according to the ruling by the CSSC in May of 2009 in the Strauss vs Horton ruling!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#154945 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>When he voided the referendum, he disregarded the consent of the governed and the government.
.
<quoted text>In Walker's decision, he ruled: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples..."
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case...
Down with unelected courts imposing law against the will of the majority.
Again, NO HE DIDN'T.......and I'm sorry that you have difficulty understanding that all Judge Walker did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

MY wife and I were legally married 2 years before Judge Walker EVER made his ruling on Prop 8.......today we have been legally married 4 year as of tomorrow..........Prop 8 didn't do anything to my marriage, but it did prevent other Same-Sex Couples from getting married.........the good news is that Prop 8 hasn't much longer before it is history just like Prop 22!!!

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.

Tujunga Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 min Just Me Wolfie 29,257
News Ellen: Kids are not in star couple's future, El... 21 hr Commander Bunny 10
News Crime and Public Safety, January 13 (Jan '10) Wed princess 17
News Lara Logan hospitalized for sexual assault comp... Wed Go Blue Forever 1
The Anthro[pology / History Debate of the ... Tue Gerry Zragemca 1
News 2 dozen charged with Mexican Mafia drug ring in LA (Apr '09) Mar 22 badenie 60
Review: Enrique Arevalo Law Office (Dec '08) Mar 19 Eunice 63

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at March 26 at 6:11AM PDT

Tujunga Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Tujunga People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]