Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,181

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
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169894 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Well, playing "slap the troll" is fun, but I do not have enough time to seriously dig in, right now, gotta go. Have fun kids.
I begin to wonder if you call your own dick a troll at this point.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169895 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
A vast majority in the South did not want to free slaves.
A vast majority nationwide did not want women to be able to vote.
Gee dumbass...do you or do you not believe all Americans citizens whose actions prove no harm should or should not be able to hold a full set of rights?
Because so far Junior it's only those you personally approve of and guess what? You never were or will be Emperor of America.
So you do not believe in the right of succession?

Our founders did.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169896 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
I begin to wonder if you call your own dick a troll at this point.
There goes Dan, thinking about another guy's dick again.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169897 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the founders include "harm" in their idea of personal freedom and liberty?
If you are going to cite the founders, I suggest you not interject your own opinions into their words.
And when the founders spoke of "freedom and liberty" they included PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Your freedom to be you included my freedom to be free from you. But since we have become a society where we will cater to failure, punish success, and pander to those with a hand out- we are a long way from every truly being as free as we once were.
Nah....I'm familiar with Constitution and the introduction of the Amendments by our Founding Fathers in that they knew there would be aspects dealing with the freedoms of Americans that would come up.

Very forward thinking by them.

Lincoln was able to pass the 13th Amendment for instance which abolished slavery.

So no dumbfuck...it's not a matter of me interjecting anything. It's already there and has been acted upon.

As far as freedoms which groups and some individuals clamor for they are reviewed on the basis of harm. Fact.

You really need to go to school one day or at least do a little studying prior to holding your obviouss idiotic opinions which you seem so willing to share in here.

Now there's a group who think having sex with little boys is the best treat out there. And many of them think it should be made legal. They think it should be a right...an allowed freedom. They claim the little boys like it and it only adds to their experience in life.

Now hopefully you're in the same camp I am in that we know it produces harm. Therefore it will never be a freedom the members of NAMBLA (the pedophiles group who thinks little Boy Scouts are a tasty treat) will be able to have because of this.

As far as gays wanting to marry...they should be able to. There is no inherent harm found and it is a freedom a grouping of Americans want.

Now before you go back to playing your sad game of why not polygamy you need to take that up with the government...not me. They determined harm in it. I myself could care less unless those reasons I gave earlier apply.

Kindle. They make Kindles which are online books. Get one. Read a little about the world and especially our nation before spouting off even more ignorance.

Have a good night punk.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169898 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do not believe in the right of succession?
Our founders did.
England has succession. When one king or queen dies another monarch is set to take it's place.

They do, however, have a parliment which holds sway over most governmental duties and which is democratic in nature so their royal monarchy is only there for appearances and national pride.

The only succession here might be when a father that founded a company hands over the reigns to his offspring.

As far as "believing" in it, I know it exists.

Pretty stupid question to ask in a thread about gays marrying though given it holds no relevance.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169899 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do not believe in the right of succession?
Our founders did.
And no genius...succession dealt with the monarchy of the country we severed ties with during our revolution in the late 1700's.

Our Founding Fathers believed in democracy moron.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169900 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
There goes Dan, thinking about another guy's dick again.
Gee...I don't know about that...it was your internet buddy "Hudson" who talking about jerking off.

He's not MY buddy in here...

LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169901 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah....I'm familiar with Constitution and the introduction of the Amendments by our Founding Fathers in that they knew there would be aspects dealing with the freedoms of Americans that would come up.
Very forward thinking by them.
Lincoln was able to pass the 13th Amendment for instance which abolished slavery.
So no dumbfuck...it's not a matter of me interjecting anything. It's already there and has been acted upon.
As far as freedoms which groups and some individuals clamor for they are reviewed on the basis of harm. Fact.
You really need to go to school one day or at least do a little studying prior to holding your obviouss idiotic opinions which you seem so willing to share in here.
Now there's a group who think having sex with little boys is the best treat out there. And many of them think it should be made legal. They think it should be a right...an allowed freedom. They claim the little boys like it and it only adds to their experience in life.
Now hopefully you're in the same camp I am in that we know it produces harm. Therefore it will never be a freedom the members of NAMBLA (the pedophiles group who thinks little Boy Scouts are a tasty treat) will be able to have because of this.
As far as gays wanting to marry...they should be able to. There is no inherent harm found and it is a freedom a grouping of Americans want.
Now before you go back to playing your sad game of why not polygamy you need to take that up with the government...not me. They determined harm in it. I myself could care less unless those reasons I gave earlier apply.
Kindle. They make Kindles which are online books. Get one. Read a little about the world and especially our nation before spouting off even more ignorance.
Have a good night punk.
You mad bro?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169902 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
And no genius...succession dealt with the monarchy of the country we severed ties with during our revolution in the late 1700's.
Our Founding Fathers believed in democracy moron.
Too Funny!
ReTardo

Covina, CA

#169903 Dec 4, 2012
ReTardo should only be used by idiots who can't stand anyone being happy.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169904 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't say this:
"You can point them out. And you can see their relevance illustrated.
Your problem is you cannot successfully argue the facts brought to your doorstep.
No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant. Add to that the only things people are concerned about if you can actually find polygamists is that they not coerce, marry underage kiddies or use methods of brainwashing in their practice of polygamy....no different than any other marriage moron.
Your inner bigot came out a long time ago with your sad effort at staining gay marriage so I'd shaddup hypocrit."
Seriously Dan, if you can't keep up with your own nonsense, how do you expect anyone else to?
Err...

...Here's what you stated in the post of which I was referring to;

"So because they are small in number they do not deserve equal rights?
Interesting, in less than a page you have managed to single-handedly dismantle two of your argument's- the argument of equality in marriage rights, and the -a vote of the majority cannot take away the rights of the majority.
Congratulations moron."

Again...no one gives a shit if polygamists get married.

I'll say it again...no one cares if polygamists get married.

Third time since you're fucking stupid...no one cares if polygamists get married.

---Where did I state they should be denied getting married because of their numbers moron.

You lying sack of shit.

I'd bet hard earned money you can't hold a job longer than 3 months because your reasoning is so polluted.

Am I right??

LOL!!!
Troll

Covina, CA

#169905 Dec 4, 2012
Danno Rue, what keeps your bait fresh?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#169906 Dec 4, 2012
KochNUTS wrote:
Look you sick frigging fools, the GOP, Republicans and Tea Party Idiots have and are driving this country in to the sea with their stupid ideas.
A bunch of Koch Brothers followers.
They would much rather drink the Fox News cool aid than admit they are wrong.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169907 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah....I'm familiar with Constitution and the introduction of the Amendments by our Founding Fathers in that they knew there would be aspects dealing with the freedoms of Americans that would come up.
Wow, rant much?

That's interesting considering as a whole, the founding fathers only passed and ratified 10 Amendment's. And not one of them mentions "harm".

Try to stick to the topic. The question was simple- where did the founders mention "Harm" as a reason for the federal government to eliminate an inalienable right?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169908 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
England has succession. When one king or queen dies another monarch is set to take it's place.
They do, however, have a parliment which holds sway over most governmental duties and which is democratic in nature so their royal monarchy is only there for appearances and national pride.
The only succession here might be when a father that founded a company hands over the reigns to his offspring.
As far as "believing" in it, I know it exists.
Pretty stupid question to ask in a thread about gays marrying though given it holds no relevance.
Nice side-step jackass. If you don't want to discuss secession perhaps you shouldn't bring up the civil war.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169909 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
And no genius...succession dealt with the monarchy of the country we severed ties with during our revolution in the late 1700's.
Our Founding Fathers believed in democracy moron.
Our founders HATED democracy you MORON!!! That's why they created a REPUBLIC!!!!

Get a clue.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169910 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Err...
...Here's what you stated in the post of which I was referring to;
"So because they are small in number they do not deserve equal rights?
Interesting, in less than a page you have managed to single-handedly dismantle two of your argument's- the argument of equality in marriage rights, and the -a vote of the majority cannot take away the rights of the majority.
Congratulations moron."
I know what I said you fucking twit, it is you whom is having trouble with your own position. That must be why you are so angry..

"No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant."

Like you say, their numbers are so small who gives a sh$$ about them.

Poor Dan, such a bigot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169911 Dec 4, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
They would much rather drink the Fox News cool aid than admit they are wrong.
Yawn.. Because that Obama Kool Aid is much sweeter..

BTW, it's KOOL not COOL. You should at least learn how to spell your nonsense.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169912 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice side-step jackass. If you don't want to discuss secession perhaps you shouldn't bring up the civil war.
You never mentioned 'secession'.

You advised of 'succession' dumbfuck.

Your post #169895;

"So you do not believe in the right of succession?

---Go to school, you ignorant moron before entering any more posts....really.

Because as it is you're just being stupid.

Our founders did."
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169913 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, rant much?
That's interesting considering as a whole, the founding fathers only passed and ratified 10 Amendment's. And not one of them mentions "harm".
Try to stick to the topic. The question was simple- where did the founders mention "Harm" as a reason for the federal government to eliminate an inalienable right?
There are more than ten Amendments to the Constitution. And freedoms are duly argued in regards to harm they may cause.

You sir are a complete fool.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Young Man Believes Music Can Heal The World 1 hr Rickey Bobby 146
Conrad Murray and girlfriend Nicole Alvarez enj... 4 hr Sleepingboy 31
Criminal Defense Attorneys Take on Wendy Segall (May '11) 5 hr Allison 14
Taylor Swift-Karlie Kloss: Singer Linked To Vic... 16 hr Matt 1
FBI Needs Help Identifying Beverly Hills Bank R... Dec 11 Xusanna 1
'The Young And The Restless' Dec. 5 Spoilers: J... Dec 9 Donna Rogers 2
'I Like Working With Pain-In-The-Ass, Douchey M... (Feb '13) Dec 6 eecommerce 3

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:38 pm PST