Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course it isn't all that I have, it is one of many corrections that you are in need of, You attempted to look clever, 2 days ago, trying to find fault with my use of "obfuscation", when you misuse and misspell much simpler word than mine. And you whine when your flaws are pointed out. Cute.

No one needs to use cleverness in speaking truth.

Yet another fact the Confucious would no doubt agree upon.

[Roloes]

Just drop and run for cover.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.

Ah, BS, I just pointed out a flaw in your "logic".

R Hudson wrote:

2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.

You can't tell a woman from a man. Guess because you look in the mirror and can't tell a bigfoot from a human.

R Hudson wrote:

3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.

More BS. You keep going on about gay couples raising children, and even though they do a fine job, that's not the issue. Gay marriage is.

R Hudson wrote:

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 ?

Was that supposed to make sense? I have no desire to control children.

R Hudson wrote:

5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.

Dodge.

R Hudson wrote:

7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.

Rose's Law...

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
To your dimwitted self, the answer is missing. but the simple answer is, that is a question, that drives at the point that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal at all. You are simply a fool that doesn't understand the flaws in your own attempts at reasoning away common sense. As I've said before, keep quiet child, the grownups are talking.

Specifically what are my flaws in reasoning?

That they don't agree with your ignorant opinions??

You gotta remember....just because you saw a zebra at the zoo doesn't mean your favorite donkey Ol' Bessie was fooling around with the dalmation 2 houses down the street. It's just your opinion.

And if you don't believe heterosexual couples and same sexed couples are "not equal at all" then you need to provide specifics because to me at least that stgatement is akin to claiming both mars and the moon are not planets in tghat you're a God damned mess that couldn't understand the truth of things if it were tattooed on your fat forehead.

LOL!!!

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

Later, kids, I'll be back tomorrow.

pssssssst....

....pssssssssst..

..no one cares.

FYI.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Final note, before I go...
It's like arguing with children, isn't it ? We know it's profitless, but we have to keep trying, for their own good...

Yeah....it's real beneficial for everyone that you don't want 2 loving adults to marry each other.

Thanks but no thanks.

Get lost friend.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.

I only have three brain cells and two of them fight each other.

Even given that my IQ is no doubt 4 or 5 rungs higher on the ladder of intelligence than your lost soul.

LOL!!!

[Weaved]

Danna Cee - take it to the limit, then shut up.

[Dan C]

'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.

It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.

Just my take.

[Mike DiRucci]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.

Dan is a big Rose_NoHo fan. Looks up to her. Thinks she's intelligent and insightful!

I heard all those pompous iceholes had a BBQ once. Can you imagine? Too funny!

[Mike DiRucci]

Dan C wrote:

'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.
It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.
Just my take.

That 2nd to last sentence is a real doozy!

Just my take.

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying

That is a nonsensical question. You are asking someone to prove a negative. The fact is, and you can dance around it all you like, but the SCOTUS has never ruled anything other than the union of a man and a woman to be a marriage.

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?

Why would they mention it? Each and every case involved one man and one woman, there was no reason to mention the obvious. But if you want to get anal, it would come at the very beginning of the decision when they named the plaintiffs and the defendants.

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!

You are the one having trouble with reading comprehension. I was answering to the fact that you said they "COULD" and what a leap that would be as it would require them to completely ignore the 10th Amendment.

[akpilot]

Dan C wrote:

<quoted text>
This all could easily change.
Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.

Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?

"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."

I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."

Keep trying Dan, you will get there.

[akpilot]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.
On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes
First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California

If the court was going to do this, they wouldn't have taken the case as that is EXACTLY the way it stands now.

Get a clue Dan.

[MXpilot]

A Fox News contributor was punched in the face during a pro-union protest December 11, 2012 Tuesday in Michigan.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet if someone went back over the last few pages of posts, they would find that you have posted the terms LOLSER and and CONDUMB more than I have.

You use it daily Rose. It doesn't help your argument one bit.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage. It was a case concerning using forced sterilization as a form of punishment for crime.

You should call the court and let them know they got it wrong in Loving V Virginia when they used the precedent set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma that marriage is a "right" when they made their decision.

I am sure they would love to hear from ya Rose.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the court's job. Why do you think we have checks and balances,

Really Rose? Where is the check on the court?

You would know the answer to this if you actually studied the writings of the founder's. But since you haven't you will simply reply with more of your nonsense that has no meaning or relevance to the argument.

[Dan C]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?
"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."
I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."
Keep trying Dan, you will get there.

The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????

WTF???

LOL!!!!

Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.

And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.

You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Actually Loving V Virginia did NOT state that marriage was a "right"- Skinner v Oklahoma did, they just affirmed it. Not once does the court say "Marriage is a Right" outside of the reference to Skinner v Oklahoma Rose.

That's why they cited Skinner v Oklahoma. Stop trying to act as if you understand law because you watch Judge Judy.