Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

LaQuesha,
Penal Code 422 is the code for criminal threats. It can be filed either as a felony or a misdemeanor. As a felony, it is a strike and carries up to 3 years in custody. You will need a good criminal defense attorney. I'd strongly suggest you find someone who focuses on criminal law and who routinely practices in the court where this case will be heard. And if Topix doesn't do anything, I will be contacting the authorities.

Topix might do something, if they feel their TOS have been violated.
But the authorities would just laugh at you if you tried to file charges. What laws are you claiming have been broken?

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
And? I didn't say "racist" in that post, now did I?
LOLSER!

You're an idiot...

You think that you can refer to everything that is "racists" and then escape because you didn't say the actually word?

Please Rose, the rest of us aren't a ignorant as you, that's why we aren't on welfare.

Seriously, are you f-ing stupid?
What to you think your ranting about slave ownership and the black vote was all about?

Here is your post again in case you forgot what you typed:
They are all worm poop now. Have been for centuries.
I don't give a fk what they intended. They surely didn't intend for black women to be able to vote.
<quoted text>
Slave owner, rapist.
Worm poop.
You really see yourself as some knowledgeable historian, don't you? You're just a pretentious little prick.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
You are just silly.
Skinner V Oklahoma wasn't about marriage, it was about using forced sterilization as a means of punishment. The mention of marriage was incidental.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

Have you ever even read the decision in Loving V Virginia?

Can you read?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). "- Loving V Virginia

You do comprehend why the Court cited- Skinner V Oklahoma- don't you?

Right to marriage in Loving V Virginia was in directed reference to Skinner V Oklahoma as it was cited by the court.
You would know this if you had actually read the opinion which you like to ignorantly cite all the time.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
This will shut you up:
Provide any evidence that god exists.

Provide any evidence that god doesn't.

[Jerry]

R Hudson wrote:

WE have up to 3 years to file charges against you. Count them, 3! Sorry, Mike, I wasn't trying to be elitist...
I cannot believe that Chongo has failed to come up with some spin that makes US the culprits here, like "(we) brought it upon (y)ourselves, so what's a poster to do?"

Too bad the authorities would find that kiddy porn on your computer hard-drive during their investigation.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an idiot...
You think that you can refer to everything that is "racists" and then escape because you didn't say the actually word?
Please Rose, the rest of us aren't a ignorant as you, that's why we aren't on welfare.

There you go with another racist comment.
You are a typical racist fundie.

akpilot wrote:

Seriously, are you f-ing stupid?
What to you think your ranting about slave ownership and the black vote was all about?

LOL. You are so stupid!
I didn't rant.
We were talking about the "intent" of the founding fathers.
And I explained why I didn't give a fk about their intent.

akpidiot wrote:

Here is your post again in case you forgot what you typed:
They are all worm poop now. Have been for centuries.
I don't give a fk what they intended. They surely didn't intend for black women to be able to vote.
<quoted text>
Slave owner, rapist.
Worm poop.
You really see yourself as some knowledgeable historian, don't you? You're just a pretentious little prick.

And?
You're the one going on a rant about this.
Do you have a collection of my posts?
Do you pull it when you read them?

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Provide any evidence that god doesn't.

LOL.

1. If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go with another racist comment.
You are a typical racist fundie.

What is racist? Again, welfare isn't race specific, and since you don't have knowledge as to my race- which could be the same as yours- even making the claim makes you foolish.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. You are so stupid!
I didn't rant.

All you do is rant, it's the only thing you are good at.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
We were talking about the "intent" of the founding fathers.
And I explained why I didn't give a fk about their intent.

That explains a lot. It also shows how ignorant you are of the founding.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
1. If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.

If God existed, he would certainly have the power to ensure his presence was never exposed.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
2. There is no evidence of his existence.

There is no evidence he doesn't.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
3. There is no god.

You can't prove that statement.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you ever even read the decision in Loving V Virginia?
Can you read?
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). "- Loving V Virginia
You do comprehend why the Court cited- Skinner V Oklahoma- don't you?
Right to marriage in Loving V Virginia was in directed reference to Skinner V Oklahoma as it was cited by the court.
You would know this if you had actually read the opinion which you like to ignorantly cite all the time.

Dummy, nothing you can post will change the fact that Skinner v. Oklahoma was not about marriage. It was about using forced sterilization as a type of punishment.
Here is the full quote from Skinner v OK
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects." The use of the word "marriage" is incidental.(Remember, this was 1942...)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

So, exactly what point are you trying to make?

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Dummy, nothing you can post will change the fact that Skinner v. Oklahoma was not about marriage. It was about using forced sterilization as a type of punishment.
Here is the full quote from Skinner v OK
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects." The use of the word "marriage" is incidental.(Remember, this was 1942...)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
So, exactly what point are you trying to make?

You certainly are dense, we should have dropped you off the NJ coast as a break wall, hurricane Sandy would have turned around.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
What is racist? Again, welfare isn't race specific,

Non issue, stupid.
I keep having to explain this to you.
Racist comments are most often based on *stereotypes*.

akpilot wrote:

and since you don't have knowledge as to my race- which could be the same as yours- even making the claim makes you foolish.

You race doesn't matter. People can be self-hating. And I would not blame you in the least for hating yourself.

akpilot wrote:

All you do is rant, it's the only thing you are good at.
<quoted text>
That explains a lot. It also shows how ignorant you are of the founding.

The founding what?

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You certainly are dense, we should have dropped you off the NJ coast as a break wall, hurricane Sandy would have turned around.

IOW, I provided evidence, including a quote from and a link to Skinner. You can't counter my argument, so you make a lame joke.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Dummy, nothing you can post will change the fact that Skinner v. Oklahoma was not about marriage.

And silly puppet, nothing you say can ever change the fact that Skinner v Oklahoma is the source of marriage as a "right" and as such is always referenced in each and every subsequent case regarding marriage right's. Including your beloved Loving V Virginia.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
If God existed, he would certainly have the power to ensure his presence was never exposed.

When I say, "God" I'm talking about the Christian/fundie god, who is supposed to take an active part in our lives, answer prayers, that kind of thing. If "god" can mean anything, then, stupid, there is nothing to debate.

akpilot wrote:

There is no evidence he doesn't.

Again, dummy, the fact there is no evidence he exists is evidence he doesn't exist.

akpilot wrote:

You can't prove that statement.

I did.
But I used logic.
No wonder you didn't understand.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
And silly puppet, nothing you say can ever change the fact that Skinner v Oklahoma is the source of marriage as a "right" and as such is always referenced in each and every subsequent case regarding marriage right's. Including your beloved Loving V Virginia.

Odd, Skinner v OK never says marriage is right.
Anyway, WTF is your point?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Non issue, stupid.

So now it's a non-issue?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I keep having to explain this to you.
Racist comments are most often based on *stereotypes*.

Where is the stereotype? I am guessing that you are so defensive over this because you know I am right.

Enjoy that welfare check Rose, I worked hard for it.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You race doesn't matter. People can be self-hating. And I would not blame you in the least for hating yourself.

"You race"? Like I said Rose, you are ignorant, and you continue to prove my point.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The founding what?

Is this really a question? Sorry puppet, topix doesn't have a crayon font.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
IOW, I provided evidence, including a quote from and a link to Skinner. You can't counter my argument, so you make a lame joke.

What evidence? The fact that Skinner V Oklahoma is the source of marriage as a "right" and as such is referenced in every case where this claim of "right" to marriage is mentioned?

The lame joke is you Rose.

stare decisis- look it up Rose.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Odd, Skinner v OK never says marriage is right.
Anyway, WTF is your point?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Really?

" We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner V Oklahoma

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
So now it's a non-issue?

Wow, you are stupid.
<quoted text>

akpilot wrote:

Where is the stereotype? I am guessing that you are so defensive over this because you know I am right.
Enjoy that welfare check Rose, I worked hard for it.

LOL. Why make racist comments then play innocent.
You aren't fooling anybody.

akpilot wrote:

"You race"? Like I said Rose, you are ignorant, and you continue to prove my point.

Want to point out typos?
What about your...
'You think that you can refer to everything that is "racists"'?
LOL. I could find many, many more. But I can't be bothered.

akpilot wrote:

Is this really a question? Sorry puppet, topix doesn't have a crayon font.

IOW, I handed your backside to you.