Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Big D]

onetimeatbandcamp wrote:

<quoted text>Why is this so surprising. Are you worried about the sanctity of marriage? What is the divorce rate at now? 60% or so? What a joke.

Now come on, they are desperately trying to preserve the sanctity of Brittany Spears 3 day "just for fun" marriage

[Big D]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, if you look up Democratic Republic in Websters Dictionary you will not find it, i doesn't exits. The only reference in the Democratic Republic of Yemen.
If you look it up on Wiki- you will find some nonsense about it being a hybrid of a republic and a democracy but all sources cited, which are only 2 are from 1997 and 2011. It is a made up term, and has nothing to do with the founding. You will find NOTHING in the writings of the founders referring to the US as anything other than a REPUBLIC. Not a Democracy, and not a Democratic Republic.

LOL

I would be more than happy to take away your ability to vote

We have been a democratic republic from the beginning, back to school with you.

Our founders knew too well the danger of a pure democracy, the same as with a pure republic. The examples in history are vivid. Most of the quotes you find are them arguing with those that wanted a pure democracy. The balance between the two is not perfect, but safer than either.

[KiMare]

Government is not required for marriage.

Smile.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

What's funny is, that he can type in that, and when I type in that same word, I get this: Please refrain from posting profanity or offensive material.
Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator.

LOL!!!

...Well then....STOP.

LOL!

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

fffuqqqing gay.

Love your avitar.

And you say you're no 'rpo union'.

Interesting.

Do you in turn emblazon your car with gay pride stickers only to advise those looking that you're anti-gay?

[KiMare]

Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.

A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.

Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.

Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.

Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.

:-)

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

I get a lot of censorship applied to my posts. Perhaps the moderators are biased.

*Sniff*

**Sniff**

The world is so unfair....

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
So, this is the best illustration of all, of dan's character, anarchy and public endangerment. "...myself I'm jazzed we're slapping eight million Christmas lights on the SUV again this year only to drive around and blind people while tempting cops to ticket us.
LOL!!!"
He thinks it's funny to blind drivers and potentially cause traffic accidents, and perhaps a fatality or 2, and to inundate the police force, already overworked fighting crime, with silly and petty acts, designed to endanger the public, and waste valuable resources. Thanks for showing your disregard for the public well-being in yet another way, along with your rants about permitting same sex marriage. You really are an a$$hole. I hope they lock you up for that. I hope that brand new cop gets to cut his teeth on you, perhaps forcing an "attempted vehicular manslaughter" charge on you, and that some zealous D.A. gets ahold of it, and makes it stick.

LOL!!!

What a drama queen you momma raised.

[Mike DiRucci]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
That's "avatar", dumbass, and it's "not pro union", schmuck, and it is up there, as a dig at Bruno, who may be interested to know that I followed his advise, and resigned from the union. All the other posters who mock you for attempting to sound educated are absolutely right on the money. you are an a$$hole of the first order, and you do not what you are talking about. You make up a lot of nonsense, and fabricate when you need to, so as to be able to compete with the real smart guys in here. You ain't one of the smart ones, though, and you know it. You may have some of the simpletons fooled, such as the one who thanked you, "for all you put with", gawd, what a moronic thing to say, but he did, and others who may support your drivel, but it is a fact that the arguments that you try to involve yourself in, would not get past a 5th grader.

That would be one of old swiftboater Bill's 1000 sock puppets that thanked him. Another real dumbass. A fine pair of jackasses Dan and Bill! At least Dan doesn't use sock puppets like old sniffbutt Bill.

Funny stuff!

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
That's "avatar", dumbass, and it's "not pro union", schmuck, and it is up there, as a dig at Bruno, who may be interested to know that I followed his advise, and resigned from the union. All the other posters who mock you for attempting to sound educated are absolutely right on the money. you are an a$$hole of the first order, and you do not what you are talking about. You make up a lot of nonsense, and fabricate when you need to, so as to be able to compete with the real smart guys in here. You ain't one of the smart ones, though, and you know it. You may have some of the simpletons fooled, such as the one who thanked you, "for all you put with", gawd, what a moronic thing to say, but he did, and others who may support your drivel, but it is a fact that the arguments that you try to involve yourself in, would not get past a 5th grader.

Avatar...avatar....avatar....- I'll have to remember that.

LOL!!!

So you're so twisted at another poster you need to make efforts to spite him by using an avitar...ooops... avatar that irritates him.

Just how small is your world friend???

LOL!!!

As far as my IQ it may be only a whopping 56 AFTER I get a full night's rest and take some vitamin B but at least it's intelligent enough to see we should let gays marry if we're to claim we live in a free nation and abise by the Constitution.

LOL!!!

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right, more trivializing of the danger that you pose with that stunt. Go ahead, keep laughing, right up until you kill someone, then whine to the judge that you're sorry. Tell him that he is a drama queen, too. It might reduce your sentence.

ROFL!!!

Well shitforbrains....if it were at all dangerous you'd think the multiple cops who have given me a thumbs up over the past 4 years (this is my FIFTH year BTW!!!) would have pulled me over.

Go figure.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Snorting more of that coke that fuels so many of your rants ?

No....I was tearing up after hearing your pitiful cries for justice.

LOL!!!!

[Dan C]

KiMare wrote:

Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)

Odd isn't it that a significant number of fathers beat, kill or leave their offspring.

And they don't care if they leave the marriage.

Given that doesn't it make your ignorant blanket statement as dumb as claiming Florida oranges are in the animal kingdom?

LOL!!!

[PullStings]

Fog horns are back in vogue.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)

Dan C wrote:

<quoted text>
Odd isn't it that a significant number of fathers beat, kill or leave their offspring.
And they don't care if they leave the marriage.
Given that doesn't it make your ignorant blanket statement as dumb as claiming Florida oranges are in the animal kingdom?
LOL!!!

What idiotic gay twirl!

"A SIGNIFICANT number of fathers beat, kill or leave"?

Really.

What would that have to do with the facts I stated? You have no answer so you make a ad homoan attack with a twist of lie?

Please, be specific, how does your claim related to any specific point I made.

As to yours, speaking of oranges in the animal kingdom, FAR less fathers beat, kill or leave their children than do non-biological substitutes. Ever hear of the Cinderella Effect?

Furthermore, those behaviors are in conflict with every single aspect of fatherhood and masculinity. A severe disqualification.

No LOL, but Smirk.

[Mike DiRucci]

Dan C wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you in turn emblazon your car with gay pride stickers only to advise those looking that you're anti-gay?

Your buddy Bill does!

[Mike DiRucci]

Dan C wrote:

<quoted text>
*Sniff*
**Sniff**
The world is so unfair....

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[HaK machine works]

Never can tell when someone posts over because they don't enjoy the previous posting.

[Armey]

In a move not publicly announced, former Rep. Dick Armey, the folksy conservative leader, has resigned as chairman of FreedomWorks,

[Mike DiRucci]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
While his pipes are piping tonight...

Bill's real silly. Always posts stuff putting down straights, forgetting he's straight himself!

Funny!