Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,479)

Showing posts 149,561 - 149,580 of199,077
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170888
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like you THINK that everyone BUT you is a jackass..........what a flucking putz.
Brilliant post jackass.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170889
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples
No.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170892
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ostrich maneuver ...
Get a load a that dopey "jazzybird" creep, wears a tin foil hat and calls other men "sugar nipples", claims he's straight.

Too Funny!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170893
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

USA Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess that whole by the people for the people is a sham.
The people include members of minorities.
Get over it.

And the Electoral College has been around since the US has. And they can ignore the people's vote, and vote for who they want to.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170894
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170895
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples
Just for you creep-

http://www.rleeermey.com/sounds/dirtbag.wav

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170897
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there won't.
...To continue...
Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.
Then why do childless couples get the benefits?
R Hudson wrote:
But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults. And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
That's because you are just a homophobe trying to make his bigotry seem noble.
R Hudson wrote:
Same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society, which is why we oppose it.
BS. You're just a homophobe. You haven't shown a single way gay marriage would harm society.
R Hudson wrote:
Let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do. Even Chongo.. But, the issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history. Why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is? It is because a union between a man and a woman has been humanly and historically universal. It is to bestow a singular place in society for a natural family. Conceiving, raising, and maintaining a family. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? In each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
R Hudson wrote:
Spare me your nonsense about morons, you shout that because that is an inconvenient truth that you cannot dodge. No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage. What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution. Since we cannot possibly understand the scope and ramifications of this issue, might I suggest that same sex couples wishing for marriage move to some of the states that HAVE legalized it, and see how it works out, instead of attempting to force the issue into national legislation ?
Why? If the issue were raising children, they could do that without getting married. Just tell us how the children would benefit from the couple not being able to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
The results could be disastrous for this nation, and this nation is in dire straits, already...
Rose's Law...
You go on about children because you don't have an argument against gay marriage. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and they do. They do a fine job. And they can marry and not raise children. Gay marriage and gay couples raising children are separate issues.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170902
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
He's no brother to me. Why would I need support from a half-man that needs a union to speak for him ? FYI, I understood your sarcasm here, but do not feel that any return of fire is necessary...
Because you're a half man yourself.

Unfortunately even with you two combined you'd not make so much as one individual with major character flaws given you're both lost causes.

LOL!!!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170903
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you assert that both couples are capable of procreation ? Capable of identical results, on their own, with no outside interference ?
Here's what immediately strikes down your messed up thought process.

Not all heterosexual couples can have kids.

Should we then consider them unable to marry?

BAM!!!!

Just one shot and I shot down your plane. How does it feel to be the loser?

LOL!!!!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170904
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race. The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda? Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.

You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170905
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170907
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
What does that even mean?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170908
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
BAM!!!!
LOL!!!!
KABOOOM!!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!!!!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170909
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I am against you trying to get into the catfight, but to chide him for spelling, after the way you misuse simple words, like "site" (which should read "cite") and "peal"(which should read "peel") is adorable...He didn't actually call you a monkey (not that I am on his side, my scorn is Equal Opportunity).
Typos, that's all you have.
LOLSER.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170910
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Install some seatbelts in your home furniture given with the advancement of gay marriage happening in each state you're up for a rocky ride.

LOL!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170912
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that even mean?
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.

The guy is a loser bar none.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170913
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.
You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!
The 14th holds no sway? Oh no! I thought it held some sway.

He's wrong because he's a "social fuckup friend"?

Dan. What a dope!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170916
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...removed for space...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race.
I don't base my argument on sexual behavior, but on gender.
R Hudson wrote:
The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda?
Civil rights are civil rights.
R Hudson wrote:
Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry.
And? If those laws violate the Constitution, they should be changed. That's what happened with Loving V VA.
R Hudson wrote:
The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human.
In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
I never use "love" in my argument.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170917
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.
2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.
3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.
4) We've covered your desire to control the children of others, before, why not tell lililth to step back from her kid ? You'd get cut, remember ?
5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.
7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.
1) So would it seem a same sexed couple be.

2) It's your opinion she's a transvestite. Some may consider that fat thing you married the same so keep that in mind.

3) No one is ignoring anything...what upsets you is not everyone agrees.

4) It's only natural to lay out concern for the little kiddies of the world. Unfortunately for you and your ilk you think it better for kids to grow up in most often abusive foster care than in a loving adoptive gay family.

5) Your opinion.

6) No...children don'[t benefit from broken families nor do they benefit being raised in foster care or as orphans when there are options you seem to ignore.

7) You don't give a rat's ass about the children for if you did you'd rather see them grow up in a loving family than to live as unwanted orphans or in foster carwe so please liar...STFU.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170918
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.
The guy is a loser bar none.
No kidding...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 149,561 - 149,580 of199,077
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••