Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is a public act. And it is regulated by rules, and conventions that are clearly defined.

Marriage is a legal contract. And when the rules that regulate who can enter that contract violate equal protection, the rules should be changed.

[Butch]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, coward, read this and then reiterate your claim that the unions are not thugs:
New video has surfaced showing Fox News contributor Steven Crowder being repeatedly punched while trying to stop Michigan pro-union protestors from tearing down a conservative tent outside the state’s capitol.
Earlier this afternoon, we reported that pro-union protestors in Michigan tore down an Americans for Prosperity tent while rallying against the state’s new right-to-work law.
Crowder was apparently on the scene to conduct man-on-the-street interviews, when things seemed to have gotten quite tense.
One protester cursed at him as he attempted to ask a question; another grabbed Crowder and punched him in the head a few times. Later on, as a tent was being torn down, Crowder was hit again.
However, being that the video is edited, it is unclear whether the violence against Crowder resulted from something we don’t see on-camera, or what sort of exchange occurred immediately before the punching at 0:38 into the video.
Before the video surfaced, Crowder tweeted several pictures of himself, post-punching."
From: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-contribut...

Pfft! That's nothin'. You boys ever heard of the French Revolution? LOL Now that's some good internal strife going on. And they have the gall to say Americans get too emotional about their opinions. Go figure.

Personally, I support the right to punch TV journalists. For any reason; but especially if the men use tons of hairspray. I'm sorry, but as citizens of a free country, we just can't stand for that kinda thing.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would 'I' have to STFU, as 'I' have addressed this question, in a subsequent post, to moronic dan, about the justices and their salaries, and the costs of trying a case. Maybe YOU should STFU, as you are an imbecile. And, an imbecile that wishes to get the last word in, so badly, that you forget that the Constitution allows all of us "Freedom Of Speech".
Shut the hell up. Crackhead.

Um, stupid, the justices are going to get paid, gay marriage cases or no.

I said you'll have STFU, because you couldn't come up with any government resources waited, and you would have been better off if you had. You didn't come up with any. And, bigfoot, it's not a "Freedom of Speech" issue. I'm free to tell you to STFU, and you are free not to.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Here it is, you shouldn't be afraid to be who you are...
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/gionet2454...

I'm not going to bother to look.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
thank you, for being you.

You are showing how basically dishonest you are.

[Butch]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
But, rose, we are not talking about protection, we are talking about entitlement, and attack upon a universally recognized institution. Don't forget ability does not grant validation.

You're a swarthy fella Rock. BTW, what do mean, exactly, by 'universally recognized institution'?

[sheesh void of hate]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Give it up loser. Clinton was impeached. It did not fail.
Happened last century. Accept it. Move on. We both know what happened.

I can't believe this dead horse is still breathing! Genuine LOL!

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
But, rose, we are not talking about protection, we are talking about entitlement, and attack upon a universally recognized institution. Don't forget ability does not grant validation.

You are so dumb, you don't even know what "equal protection of the laws" means.
And gay marriage isn't an attack against marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
And,'I' was being nice, for once, LOL, when 'I' addressed you by name, as seen above. What a mistake that was. Chongles, old pal, they are getting paid to preside over important cases, not frivolous ones, as the SSM issue is. This BS issue actually wastes (not "wait(ed)[sic]) the time that other, more important cases require. Silly monkey. As per the "STFU" issue,'I' find myself (oddly) in agreement with you.

Bigfoot, they get paid, gay marriage cases or no. Do you think they haven't been paid ever in all of history, waiting for a gay marriage case?

And why do you racists call black people "monkeys" when monkeys have light skin, straight hair, thin lips and flat butts?

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me, you knuckle-dragging uni-brow, but you cannot be serious with this? LOL You see no difference between a ritual ceremony, and the description of the ritual ceremony ? You are truly absurd. Do you also believe that the TV set and the manual for the TV set are one and the same ? HAR HAR YUK YUK You are absolutely the dumbest son-of-a-b!tch in here...

Right.

Well Einstein there is only one thing called marriage. Your efforts of muddying the waters illustrate how polluted your mind just might be.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
It is even less beneficial, for the majority of us, to waste U.S. Government resources, attempting to re-define the term "marriage", for the benefit of less than 10% of the population. Way to go, chump...

Prove it.

Prove that government resources will be wasted should we allow gays to marry.

I don't see it but you go on now...show us the goods. Show us the proof.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
"Your take" is erroneous. You are witnessing the phenomenon of common sense refusing to be buried. You, surely, cannot expect 90% of us to clam up, so as to allow 10% of the population to take control ? How about simply speaking for your end of the spectrum, the "lower than 56 IQ points" crowd, and not attempting to identify with the smart ones of us that have the real grasp of the situation ?

LOL!!

I don't think your idea of 'common sense' is shared.

As messed up as you are you might think using Reynolds foil on a baby in leiu of Huggies diapers is 'common sense' given it's cheaper and forms to an infants backsides more closely....LOL!!!!!

Homosexuals wishing to marry merely represents an American citizens wish to pursue a particular liberty which as of yet has not proven to cause any harm outside of making you get all squinty eyed mad given you don't like it.

[Mike DiRucci]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't believe this dead horse is still breathing! Genuine LOL!

;D

Who the man?

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go, again, making a racist issue out of my referral, to your mentality...

Your referral was racist. Why act like it wasn't?

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Wrong, because legislated recognition is not the same as universal recognition.
2) I though it was YOU who had the tubba-blubba that earned the moniker of "pocchari", as you had the mistaken idea of posting your lardass in here, for all to laugh at...
3) Having some people ignore common sense arguments does not invalidate the truth.
4) Who said that abusive foster care was better ? You, perhaps, have some evidence that I said that, as you are attacking me for it ?
5) This is a proven and time-tested truth, as well, as Chongo like to drone on about morons worrying about children. It is also the opinion of others, not just me.
6) Your idea seems to be that one kind of broken home is better than another type of broken home...interesting. Fallacious, but interesting.
7) Why should they be given a second rate home, at all ? There are many loving heterosexual couples wishing to adopt, not merely foster. Wake up, moron. And the voice of reason and sanity will not be silenced by an idiotic "STFU" from you.
8) You spend a lot of time there, must be a living nightmare for you.
9) Many things make them unequal. Do you, perhaps, have anything to offer to prove that they are not unequal ? My most unshakeable offering is empirical evidence.
10) Thinking will not give me any aneurysm, perhaps your stupid ass should not use words that you cannot spell ?
I don't give a rat's ass about your choco ice cream analogy, we are not discussing confections...
Allow me, again, to assist in your much resisted learning:(pocchari)= plump. From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Truth is truth, whether it's disputed, or not.
It HAS been proven.
Yes, they are broken. They are out of balance, like a wheel on a car that makes said car shudder.
Shoddy is what they are.
Time spent as a loser, you said you've "been there" ???
Sure, I've offered evidence, I take your glaring omission of anything to prove that they are NOT unequal to be a confession of the the lack of same ?
LOL re: your claim about thinking, I have been handing you your ass since you started jousting with me. You are clearly subpar as per intelligence. Like yer hero, Chongo...

Why is it I get the feeling if I advised you not to reach into a running garbage disposal to clean out an obstruction you'd do it anyway out of beligerance?

LOL!!!

You can state your *opinion* a hundred times but it's still just your personal opinion.

If you're just that stupid to think foster care for little kiddies is better than giving them a loving home then so be it.

And if you want to learn Japanese try 'baca' given you're full of it.

LOL!!!!

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
It is an attack upon the dignity, and honor, of marriage.

No, it's not, bigfoot.

R Hudson wrote:

Similar to the Boy Scouts, and the forced intrusion into their group. Insults the meaning of marriage, and renders it more susceptible to disparagement, and disrespect.

Wiccan, my backside.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Then, please, explain your apparent confusion in your post, in which you scoffed at the difference between marriage and the definition of marriage...

I don't think I was the one confused friend.

LOL!!!

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, I can read that, as reading the posts that both you, and Chongo, have scrawled has strengthened my ability to decipher gibberish. And another of inane analogies that misses the mark....The sad fact is that my world is the dollar, and your side is the dime. And we are witnessing the dollars being made subservient to the dime, with this issue.

You puff yoursedlf up pretty big in the internet.

In the internet you're the champion, the leader....hell.....you're the next thing to a god.

Do you glow at night too?

LOL!!!!

You the man Rock Hudson.

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Even now, you show your confusion. You call me "friend". Why ?

If you got around socially you'd know when someone wishes to disrespect you in a debate the term serves as a form of belittlement.

You might need to get out a little more than just talking to the clerk at 7-11 to get your nightly case of Budweiser Light.

FYI

[Dan C]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Psst...Then again,'I' might not....
And gays have no business attempting to appropriate a title that they do not rate. Marriage is for properly formatted couples to enjoy. Gays can have their relationships, without the Gov't stamp of approval to use to force the majority of us to recognize their theft of honor.

"...a title they do not rate."

LOL!!!

And how is it gays are not able to approprate a title they do not 'rate'?

And what is this "theft of honor" bullshit.

Are gays out there claiming to be war heroes????

LOL!!!

Your thoughts are a bad mikshake made up of 382 of the wrong ingredients friend....LOL!!!