Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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
Winston Smith

Laurel, MD

#162223 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
careful, Winston, we've got a bucking Tranny
how are things in Up Black Eddy? LMAO
I dunno, but it must be bettet than where ever you are.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162224 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, it simply isn't there- feel free to prove me wrong by citing the Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses marriage.
Now, as I tried to explain to you, the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats, I listed them for you. But like I said, you have a reading comprehension problem.
So you're not going to man enough to simply admit that you were wrong. So be it. You've already conceded the point during your backpedal

You continue to throw out qualifiers, caveats, and disclaimers to distance yourself from your original, incorrect statement. It's not working.
Now you are going to demonstrate ignorance of Jr. High Civics and pretend that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution and that they "fabricated" the right to marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says you have the right to have children, so that must not exist, eh? Doesn't mention anything about the right to travel, either. Innocent until proven guilty? Not there. Wow, that Constitution sure left out a lot of stuff. If only there were a means to interpret it and deal with such matters.....Oh wait, there is.

All of these gymnastics to defend keeping your fellow Americans as Second Class Citizens. Proud of yourself?

It is also particularly interesting that you have NOTHING to say about the Milk Run or the Cut. It is simply not possible that an AK Pilot would not know what I'm talking about. What gives? You aren't misrepresenting yourself, are you?
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162225 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
The French Supreme Court has ruled
Not my concern. I care not one whit about French law. Obviously if France were so great, you'd be there, wouldn't you?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162226 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Weird, right? He's even siting the case that proves him wrong. It's just baffling.
Makes you wonder...
And he's so nit-picky about some things.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162227 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're not going to man enough to simply admit that you were wrong. So be it. You've already conceded the point during your backpedal
You continue to throw out qualifiers, caveats, and disclaimers to distance yourself from your original, incorrect statement. It's not working.
Now you are going to demonstrate ignorance of Jr. High Civics and pretend that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution and that they "fabricated" the right to marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says you have the right to have children, so that must not exist, eh? Doesn't mention anything about the right to travel, either. Innocent until proven guilty? Not there. Wow, that Constitution sure left out a lot of stuff. If only there were a means to interpret it and deal with such matters.....Oh wait, there is.
All of these gymnastics to defend keeping your fellow Americans as Second Class Citizens. Proud of yourself?
It is also particularly interesting that you have NOTHING to say about the Milk Run or the Cut. It is simply not possible that an AK Pilot would not know what I'm talking about. What gives? You aren't misrepresenting yourself, are you?
I'm not wrong. That is why you have still been unable to provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses the issue of marriage.

And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google. Not that I have anything to prove to you, my paycheck comes in with or without your approval.

Also if you had any intelligence at all, you would see that I am not located in Alaska anymore, nor have a been for quite a few years. So again, what are you trying to prove?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162228 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
wasn't Vaughn Walker the homosexual who got klonked on his head by a woman with a beehive his last day at work, started yelling at everyone to screw themselves, deployed the escape chute, and raced through the airport to be arrested in bed with another man?
Time to pass the bong...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162230 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to pass the bong...
I agree, you have had enough.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162232 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.
BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.
All rights have restrictions, what's your point?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162233 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you always stop there, why do refuse to include the rest of the statement?
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162235 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
I'm not wrong. That is why you have still been unable to provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses the issue of marriage.
Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage....
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.Skinner v. Oklahoma.......
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions.....
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!......
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution.......
the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats.......
I'm not wrong....
You can't even agree with YOURSELF.

Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google.
An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162236 Oct 5, 2012
*your*

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162238 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162239 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
<quoted text>You can't even agree with YOURSELF.
Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
<quoted text>An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Yawn..

The only one grasping at straws here is you.

I notice you still can't cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares marriage is a right. We are still waiting.

If I were wrong I would admit it, but I am not. I have been very clear in my statements and thus far you have failed to refute any of them with anything other than your emotions and opinions. You debate like a 3rd grader trying to get a candy bar.

So, let's recap. I have been very clear that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. FACT, and unless you can find that Article of the Constitution that deals with marriage, I am correct and thus have nothing to retract.

I have also been very clear in stating that the SCOTUS has declared there is a "right" to marriage, something they fabricated, but there none the less. However, this "right" is very restrictive, and has never extended to anything other than that or one man and one woman, thus meeting the criteria making a marriage a "right"- essential to our existence and survival- set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma.

I'm sorry that your feeble mind is having trouble keeping up with the conversation.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162240 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google. Not that I have anything to prove to you, my paycheck comes in with or without your approval.
Also if you had any intelligence at all, you would see that I am not located in Alaska anymore, nor have a been for quite a few years. So again, what are you trying to prove?
That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162241 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine?
What are you, 12? Seriously, you think the judge-its have any bearing on reality?

You have got to be kidding me. I could get good judge-its too, all I would have to do is pick a different name and come in here proclaiming the greatness of same sex marriage. What a joke...

You really need to move out of your parents basement.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162242 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
I notice you still can't cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares marriage is a right. We are still waiting.
Cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares you have the right to have children.
We're waiting.
Are you truly THAT stupid? Jr. High Civics is completely lost on you? You are wholly ignorant as to the role of the Supreme Court? Really? That's the line you've chosen here. That your too goddamned stupid to understand the Supreme Court ruling that YOU KEEP CITING.

Your attempt to pretend that there is a difference between Rights and "rights" is just pathetic. I mean, really. Listen to yourself. Rights are Rights, no matter whom 'fabricates' them. The rights 'fabricated' by the Founders are no more or less valid than those 'fabricated' by the Supreme Court or those 'fabricated' by the Civil Rights Act.
You're spinning like a top in a fruitless attempt to convince yourself you're clever. You aren't.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162243 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.
Who are you trying to impress? I haven't lived in Eagle River for a number of years. I could talk all day about milk runs, but it proves nothing you idiot. Like I said, anyone can google what a milk run is and answer your question.

Why don't you ask something that can't be answered with google? Oh wait, you can't, because you would have no idea what to ask.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162244 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.
You're an idiot.

I didn't call the milk run "nonsense", I called your question about it nonsense.

Again, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162245 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares you have the right to have children.
We're waiting.
Are you truly THAT stupid? Jr. High Civics is completely lost on you? You are wholly ignorant as to the role of the Supreme Court? Really? That's the line you've chosen here. That your too goddamned stupid to understand the Supreme Court ruling that YOU KEEP CITING.
Your attempt to pretend that there is a difference between Rights and "rights" is just pathetic. I mean, really. Listen to yourself. Rights are Rights, no matter whom 'fabricates' them. The rights 'fabricated' by the Founders are no more or less valid than those 'fabricated' by the Supreme Court or those 'fabricated' by the Civil Rights Act.
You're spinning like a top in a fruitless attempt to convince yourself you're clever. You aren't.
So you admit there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Got it.

But you can keep dancing if you like, it's pretty entertaining.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162246 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
I could talk all day about milk runs, but it proves nothing you idiot.
A guy who claims that a right exists only if it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and can't understand the meaning of Supreme Court Decisions that HE CITES has no business calling anyone else an idiot.

You're a Clown.

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.

Glendale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Los Angeles commercial painting services (Jul '08) 51 min maryjaneprincton 3
Proposition 1 could lessen future water shortag... 3 hr Mata Faka 1
Nora Aunor is "All Time Greatest Artist/Actress... (Oct '06) 3 hr Cin 1,336
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin For Life 27,911
Council rejects Kare offer (Sep '08) 5 hr Snoop Cat 252
Boy released in San Bernardino triple shooting ... (Nov '09) 6 hr scorpiojay 6
Lottery Hunts For Winner Of Unclaimed Quarter-M... 6 hr Rashun 1

Glendale News Video

Glendale Dating
Find my Match

Glendale Jobs

Glendale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Glendale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Glendale

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]