Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[THE DEBIL]

WANT TO LOOK 15 YEARS YOUNGER? TAKE YOUR PICTURE WITH A REFLECTED LIGHT INSTEAD OF A DIRECT FLASH. DUH.

[THE DEBIL]

DUH!

[FlatTire]

You fizzled before you got off the ground Willard Mitt Romney, and to your Republican and Tea Party cheap actors.

[Davis]

Great news... The next battle.... Gay divorce:)

[Brian_G]

Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.

[Straight Sh00ter]

gemelk wrote:

<quoted text>
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case then the Appellate court ruling stands, and same sex marriage, again, is legal in California.

So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?

[linus simms]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

Hey Mona! Can I get a hahahahahahahaha? A big long one?
Trade you a YUK!YUK!YUK! for it.

quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.

[Mike DiRucci]

linus simms wrote:

<quoted text>
quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.

Aw, SHUDDUP you dopey Jackass!

[Mike DiRucci]

YUK!YUK!YUK!

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Great, let's hear it.
<quoted text>
That isn't an argument as equal rights to not always mean equal outcomes. And no matter how much you peddle your nonsense, currently all people are treated equally as each and every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Well, stupid, that's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everyone could sit in the section assigned to their race.

The "opposite sex" isn't the same for men and women, so they are not being treated equally.

akpilot wrote:

The jabs don't take any effort, you make is quite easy with you consistent presentation of nonsense.

Obviously, since you're not capable of any real effort.

akpilot wrote:

BTW Rose, you never answered the question. What are you more angry about- the color of your skin or the fact that no one cares?

Begging the question.(Look that up.)
How can I be angry when I'm laughing at you?

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.

Dummy, you can't even follow your own train of thought. You were talking about states' rights. Well, stupid, VA is a state. OK, it's a commonwealth, but the principle is the same. VA had laws that violated the 14th Amendment, so they were overturned by the Supreme Court.

If they were a same sex couple? If down were up, I wouldn't need a bra.

[Ronald]

Straight Sh00ter wrote:

<quoted text>
So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?

Straight Sh00ter.

Out of staters such as yourself probably are not aware of it, but the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual and non-Homosexual California legislators are using hard earned taxpayer money to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children who attend expensive taxpayer funded forced California Government schools.

Most Californians love their Homosexual friends and the lesbians. Because California politicians collect most of the hard earned taxpayer money used to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children from the non-Homosexual community, the Homosexuality issue is no longer an issue only of concern to our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the Africans - including AIDS infected Haitian immigrants.

Ronald

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has already been defined.
It is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a obviously false imposter relationship.
It would be like trying to put a bent rod in a straight hole. Everyone can see it isn't the same.

Jane Pudenda wrote:

<quoted text>
boring claptrap.

In other words, you are defenseless in the face of reality.

Smirk.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Loving v Virginia had nothing to do with same sex marriage.
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."- Hernandez v Robles
Even the court told you that you are wrong, yet here you are.

Dummy, I didn't say Loving v VA had anything to do with gay marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has already been defined.
It is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a obviously false imposter relationship.
It would be like trying to put a bent rod in a straight hole. Everyone can see it isn't the same.
<quoted text>
In other words, you are defenseless in the face of reality.
Smirk.

You call yourself a "monster mutation".
Should your rights depend on your genes?
Should you be allowed to marry twice because you have both sets?
Or should you not be allowed to marry at all because you have both sets?
LOLSER!

[Mike DiRucci]

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Straight Sh00ter.
Out of staters such as yourself probably are not aware of it, but the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual and non-Homosexual California legislators are using hard earned taxpayer money to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children who attend expensive taxpayer funded forced California Government schools.
Most Californians love their Homosexual friends and the lesbians. Because California politicians collect most of the hard earned taxpayer money used to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children from the non-Homosexual community, the Homosexuality issue is no longer an issue only of concern to our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the Africans - including AIDS infected Haitian immigrants.
Ronald

Ronald.

I too love our gay friends and yes, the lesbians. Especially the lesbians.

I wish you and your honey a safe and prosperous New Year despite our free spending homosexual and non homosexual legislators.

Michael.

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You call yourself a "monster mutation".
Should your rights depend on your genes?
Should you be allowed to marry twice because you have both sets?
Or should you not be allowed to marry at all because you have both sets?
LOLSER!

Aw shuddup you silly jackass!

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, stupid, that's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everyone could sit in the section assigned to their race.
The "opposite sex" isn't the same for men and women, so they are not being treated equally.

No Rose, it's nothing like Jim Crow Laws. Homosexuals are allowed to do everything a heterosexual can do. They can eat at the same tables, drink from the same fountains, they can even partake and marriage following the same laws as everyone else.

There is hardly a resemblance. Your reliance on relating everything to the plight of the African American simply shows the weakness of your argument. Time to turn in your race card Rose.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Obviously, since you're not capable of any real effort.
<quoted text>
Begging the question.(Look that up.)
How can I be angry when I'm laughing at you?

The only one being laughed at here is you Rose. You are ignorant as a rock.

[Ronald]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Ronald.
I too love our gay friends and yes, the lesbians. Especially the lesbians.
I wish you and your honey a safe and prosperous New Year despite our free spending homosexual and non homosexual legislators.
Michael.

Mike DiRucci.

Thank you Mike. And a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too. My Honey sends lots of Woff! Woff!.

Ronald

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Dummy, I didn't say Loving v VA had anything to do with gay marriage.

Than why don't you stop using it in an attempt to somehow support your position.

What an idiot.