Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201860 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228015 Jan 17, 2014
Cali Girl 14 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a male chauvinist pig and so
try and make me leave! You think yer
So great.You act like a woman hater!
You are a stupid know it all jerk!
Blah, blah, blah ...
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228016 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
The vast majority of those nations would never term ss couples as married, and you know it.
Marriage describes a distinct relationship in every single culture.
A ss couple can never equate to marriage.
Your deceit only exposes the weakness of your position.
<quoted text>
Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.
Marriage involves two people. A man and woman. That mix is rooted in our genes and the foundation of any healthy society.
If marriage is a personal right (what you are insinuating), than every person can claim that with anyone, anything and as many as they please.
Moreover, a manipulated law does not change the fact that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Time to face reality 'hun'...
SMile.

Quite the truth, sir.
As always, concise and clear.

“T-Warrior”

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#228017 Jan 17, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar (or unwittingly ignorant perhaps)...
According to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed through the United Nations by the countries of the world back in 1948, one of the basic human rights is the right to marry.
If marriage is a right, why do we need government permission to marry and pay government for it. By the way, has no affect in this country, as it was never ratified by the senate nor did it get congressional approval, it does not overthrow the laws or Constituions of states
Cali Girl 14

Los Angeles, CA

#228018 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>Your failure to see intertwining webs confirms my suspicions re: your pre-frontal cortex.
Furthermore, your side has relied (heavily) on the attempted dismissals of any relevant info as presented by my side (although, my side doesn't always aim straight and true, any more than yours does) in attempts to gain the upper hand in a debate that consumed us, to the point of numbness.
What an idiot... Ha ha ha ha
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228019 Jan 17, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> Them gays is always writin about how they wants their rites. It ain't about rites. It is about trying to make us normal people think that they is normal. They ain't. You is rite. If two gays can marry up, why not two brothers, one man and five womens, a boy and his grannie, or a woman and her dog?
Really, Cletus? Why do you think you can't marry your sister/mother/aunt/grandmother ?

Even suggesting marrying a dog makes you look dumber than bag of hammers. Marriage is for humans, you dumbass.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228020 Jan 17, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> Alrite bad breath. You is doing it again. The constiturion does not say that two gays can marry up. You is jest writin that. I expect that this fool judge is either a homeysexual or a liberal or both of them. One man can decide that the vote of a whole state is wrong. That ain't democracy. You can hoop and holler all you wants and you might even have Obomer appoint enough judges to over the will of the people, but you will never be normal. Duck Dynasty is back and stronger than ever. They gays and liberals tried to take away their freedom of speech and religion. It did not work. Someday I hopes that the gays learn that they would be better off if they shut up about peckers, butts and mouths and just do their thing in private.
Look, Cletus. The USA is not a direct democracy. We have a republic that includes a system of checks and balances. WHAT THE FUCK do you think the judicial branch is for?

And another thing....no one tried to take away Duck Dick's freedom of speech or religion. Is Duck Dick in jail? Was he arrested for what he said? And Duck Dick's ratings were DOWN for their first new show so how do you get off saying they are back stronger than ever?

Never be normal? Like you can judge normal! Honey, there is NOTHING normal about you. You have the grammar skills of a child and the logic of a brain-damaged retard. Normal people don't care about the sex lives of other people.

Educate yourself and come back when you know what you're talking about.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228021 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the truth, sir.
As always, concise and clear.
...and yet gay couples have been getting married for 10 years. Who's out of touch with reality? It must really sting when the courts reject your feeble-minded attempts at making a point. I don't know how any judge can control themselves without going off on stupid people wasting the court's time.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228022 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
The vast majority of those nations would never term ss couples as married, and you know it.
Marriage describes a distinct relationship in every single culture.
A ss couple can never equate to marriage.
Your deceit only exposes the weakness of your position.
<quoted text>
Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.
Marriage involves two people. A man and woman. That mix is rooted in our genes and the foundation of any healthy society.
If marriage is a personal right (what you are insinuating), than every person can claim that with anyone, anything and as many as they please.
Moreover, a manipulated law does not change the fact that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Time to face reality 'hun'...
SMile.
If you had bothered to read my post, chief22's rpely and my counter reply you would know better than call my post a lie. Learn to follow the discussions before plopping your ignorance in the middle of it.
And as for 'censoring your post', I will quote the part of it I wish to respond to for the sake of clarity. See above and how cluttered it is when your entire post is left? Normally I would have simply shared the part of the quote that was relevant to my reply, like this:
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
...Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.....
See how much cleaner and direct that is? Do ya? Well? It is called editing and is the opposite of vomitting out some unfocused stream of consciousness. Bet a dollar you completely don't understand....
Spare

La Puente, CA

#228023 Jan 17, 2014
That was a spare you just threw,#228022

Try harder next time.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228024 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Your failure to see intertwining webs confirms my suspicions re: your pre-frontal cortex.
...
Your not the first man to think about part of my body, have fun.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Furthermore, your side has relied (heavily) on the attempted dismissals of any relevant info as presented by my side (although, my side doesn't always aim straight and true, any more than yours does) in attempts to gain the upper hand in a debate that consumed us, to the point of numbness.
I am not one for dismissing people's evidence. Maybe I have not seen yours yet. I tell you what, I will again restate my position and I promise to carefully read and consider your evidence as to why you feel I am wrong. Fair?
Here is my position:
Denying a couple the right to marry on for the sole reason that they are gay is hurtful and does not benefit anyone.
Okay, your evidence that shows how I am wrong is welcome.
Poof

Belvidere, IL

#228025 Jan 17, 2014
Cali Girl 14 wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot... Ha ha ha ha
Sup stank snatch?

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228026 Jan 17, 2014
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is a right, why do we need government permission to marry and pay government for it...
We only 'need' to lawful citizens. However, the better question is why did the government ever decide they needed to be a part of the business of regulating marriage? Marriage wasn't always regulated by governments. Even in the USA, cohabitation (common law) marriage was the rule of the day until the mid 1800's. Gotta ask, "why do we need government permission to marry and pay government for it. " - oh wait! that IS what you asked, right? A very, VERY good question although I doubt you knew just how good it is when you asked it ;-)
.
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
... By the way, has no affect in this country, as it was never ratified by the senate nor did it get congressional approval, it does not overthrow the laws or Constituions of states
I believe you are saying that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no affect in this country, right? Well that depends on whether or not you only believe in legal impacts or if you also believe in ethical impacts.
I take it ethical value from recognizing human rights.. doesn't interest you.
.
Cali Girl 14

Los Angeles, CA

#228028 Jan 17, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Sup stank snatch?
Grow up weed head!
red robin

Wellsville, NY

#228029 Jan 17, 2014
Cute babies!http://butchandsampson. blogspot.com/2014/01/this-is-m y-happy-face.html
Spare

La Puente, CA

#228030 Jan 17, 2014
Do you use your right or left wen you try this?
#228029

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228031 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the truth, sir.
As always, concise and clear.
Thanks,

I learned from the best.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228032 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
The vast majority of those nations would never term ss couples as married, and you know it.
Marriage describes a distinct relationship in every single culture.
A ss couple can never equate to marriage.
Your deceit only exposes the weakness of your position.
<quoted text>
Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.
Marriage involves two people. A man and woman. That mix is rooted in our genes and the foundation of any healthy society.
If marriage is a personal right (what you are insinuating), than every person can claim that with anyone, anything and as many as they please.
Moreover, a manipulated law does not change the fact that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Time to face reality 'hun'...
SMile.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had bothered to read my post, chief22's rpely and my counter reply you would know better than call my post a lie. Learn to follow the discussions before plopping your ignorance in the middle of it.
And as for 'censoring your post', I will quote the part of it I wish to respond to for the sake of clarity. See above and how cluttered it is when your entire post is left? Normally I would have simply shared the part of the quote that was relevant to my reply, like this:
<quoted text>
See how much cleaner and direct that is? Do ya? Well? It is called editing and is the opposite of vomitting out some unfocused stream of consciousness. Bet a dollar you completely don't understand....
You didn't censor for clarity, you censored to shape response with partial information. It is why an oath is to tell the 'whole' truth.

You were unable to honestly answer the first post, and you certainly failed to address my last post.

You've made your lack of character clear, now lets see if you can make your rebuttal clear.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228033 Jan 17, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying a couple the right to marry on for the sole reason that they are gay is hurtful and does not benefit anyone.
Okay, your evidence that shows how I am wrong is welcome.
You lie again.

Gays are not denied marriage for the 'sole reason that they are gay'.

Can you not post and be honest? Is your defense so weak it must be cloaked in distortion and deceit???

Sad.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228034 Jan 17, 2014
Science is allowing older and older couples to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many infertile couples have corrective surgery that enables them to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many couples that were not going to procreate, change their minds and become parents.
Ss couples? Zero.
96% of marriages historically include children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Don't you think we should require ss couples to mutually procreate at least SOME of the time???
Smirk.
Spare

La Puente, CA

#228035 Jan 17, 2014
That was a spare you just threw,#228034

Try harder next time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr dGo mnaDed lyHo i... 72,026
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Sat Trippystix 50
Where are the communal showers in Monterey? Sat Jeremy 2
News Monterey working to prohibit alcohol, without a... May 25 DNTs 1
Review: Asian Filipino Market (Oct '12) May 20 amadeo urgonamiko 4
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 16 doug Gifford 1,542
News Redwood City approves highway undercrossing: Pa... May 14 Lives in Redwood ... 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages