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
148,141 - 148,160 of 200,607 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Colima, Mexico

#169027 Nov 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuality isn't a behavior, either. It's an orientation.
But I'll apply your "logic" to behavior: speaking Japanese isn't natural because if it were, we'd all speak Japanese.
Scientifically it must either be a lifestyle choice or a abnormal flaw

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#169028 Nov 25, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
Scientifically it must either be a lifestyle choice or a abnormal flaw
According to whom dear? I mean, when you consider that there is no scientific evidence to support either contention and a fairly decent supply which proves you really don't know what you are talking about.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#169031 Nov 25, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Er....Supply of what ? Your side of the argument, with complete discounting of anything that we produce, to the contrary ? In other words, only your rhetoric is approved ? Let's examine Chongo/no_hope for a minute....One day, it is bashing the bible, all to hell, the next, quoting chapter and verse, like the best of the bible bashers. How about all the scientific studies that show imbalance to the kids of same sex couples, through adoption ? We get someone who states that if the hetero couples are all f**k*d up to hell, and only the best gay couples are examined, why, the gays have it, forgetting all the drugged out gays that are out there, wishing for a government check...How about the diseases that have been documented, like AIDS/HIV..that is no longer valid, as far as you're concerned..Supply, you said ? Of horse hockey, maybe, that's about it, sweetz.....Supply of your stilted and one-sided arguments.
hey stupid stfu

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#169032 Nov 25, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Er....Supply of what ? Your side of the argument, with complete discounting of anything that we produce, to the contrary ? In other words, only your rhetoric is approved ? Let's examine Chongo/no_hope for a minute....One day, it is bashing the bible, all to hell, the next, quoting chapter and verse, like the best of the bible bashers. How about all the scientific studies that show imbalance to the kids of same sex couples, through adoption ? We get someone who states that if the hetero couples are all f**k*d up to hell, and only the best gay couples are examined, why, the gays have it, forgetting all the drugged out gays that are out there, wishing for a government check...How about the diseases that have been documented, like AIDS/HIV..that is no longer valid, as far as you're concerned..Supply, you said ? Of horse hockey, maybe, that's about it, sweetz.....Supply of your stilted and one-sided arguments.
you did to many drugs didn't you

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#169035 Nov 25, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the first thing that you've that is correct. We don't all speak Japanese.
Homosexuality is a behavior. Behavior based upon orientation. Orientation that most of us find objectionable.
Only people who have sexual insecurities or irrational beliefs find homosexuality objectionable. People like you.
R Hudson wrote:
Any child that has never been taught anything, at all, about homosexuality will recoil from such advances, except the small minority that are "oriented" that way...
And gay people don't like advances from members of the opposite sex. So what?
R Hudson wrote:
It is why you gays spend so much time seeking the protection of legislation. If most of us didn't care, you wouldn't need protection, and you would have gained your protection long ago. Up until now, we had decency and morals running the country.
Such as? Shooting people in the back for striking? The government telling us which sex acts we can engage in with fellow consenting adults?
R Hudson wrote:
Now, we seem to be about interpreting the constitution to allow anything at all. Even immoral behavior. The Founding Fathers never intended
that there be no slavery, that Natives not be used for target practice, that women could vote...
R Hudson wrote:
this issue to arise, but if they had foresaw it, they would have included specific amendments against it. You know it, I know it, we ALL know it. You are trying to exploit loopholes. And, unfortunately, you have many sympathizers, in key places, to railroad it over the majority of us that still care about right being right, and wrong being wrong. You cannot blur the line and expect us to accept it.
Why do you lie and claim to be Wiccan?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#169036 Nov 25, 2012
jack rabbit swammi cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> You No Ho might know Peter but on the subject of gay marraig I the swami hmmmmmmmmmmn reading in pocket lent know their will be few interested in gay marriage once employers start to drop the sham partners from health coverage along with all the rest. No I did not use spell check
No kidding...
jack rabbit swammi cowboy wrote:
but any questions that relate to gay marriage?..
Give us a rational argument against it. If you can, you'll be the first.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#169037 Nov 25, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Battle creed of the promoters of same sex marriage: We don't care if it is wrong, we want it, anyway....
But ugly, something can only be wrong if it involves non consenting parties. Nobody has to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to.
Garcia

Dinuba, CA

#169041 Nov 25, 2012
I'm against same sex marriages!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169042 Nov 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
...bla bla bla Rose_NoHo hateful nonsense...bla bla bla...
Why do you lie and claim to be Wiccan?
Why do you lie and say your farts are smart?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#169043 Nov 25, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Er....Supply of what ? Your side of the argument, with complete discounting of anything that we produce, to the contrary ? In other words, only your rhetoric is approved ? Let's examine Chongo/no_hope for a minute....One day, it is bashing the bible, all to hell, the next, quoting chapter and verse, like the best of the bible bashers. How about all the scientific studies that show imbalance to the kids of same sex couples, through adoption ? We get someone who states that if the hetero couples are all f**k*d up to hell, and only the best gay couples are examined, why, the gays have it, forgetting all the drugged out gays that are out there, wishing for a government check...How about the diseases that have been documented, like AIDS/HIV..that is no longer valid, as far as you're concerned..Supply, you said ? Of horse hockey, maybe, that's about it, sweetz.....Supply of your stilted and one-sided arguments.
One hundred fifty odd words and not a single coherent thought between them. Maybe you should start drinking after you have finished posting what you are going to pass off as your thoughts. Reality check cupcake, you're just another malinformed useful idiot and if all you are going to do is babble, you're not worth the effort.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#169047 Nov 26, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You just proved my point.
No, because you didn't make a valid point.

You tried to say a lot, but there was very little meaning or truth in it.

There are NO studies that show an "imbalance" for same sex parents.

It's perfectly normal for someone to respond with verses from the Bible to a poster who tries to use Bible verses out of context as a club to beat others with, whether they believe in them or not.

When a poster such as yourself points to ONE incidence where a gay person behaved badly, it is perfectly logical to point out the fallacy of applying that to ALL gay people, by showing that straight folks can behave just as badly on occasion.

If you make logical arguments, you are more likely to be treated to a reasoned response. Otherwise, expect to get back what you dish out.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#169048 Nov 26, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar. Well worth ignoring.
Where has Rose lied?

She asked you for a rational argument. Do you have one?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#169049 Nov 26, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Battle creed of the promoters of same sex marriage: We don't care if it is wrong, we want it, anyway....
If love, commitment, marriage and family life are so wrong, then why do so many straight people value it?

Is it ONLY wrong if you were created with only the ability to be attracted to the same gender?

How does that work, exactly?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#169050 Nov 26, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Only people who have sexual insecurities or irrational beliefs find homosexuality objectionable."
You made that up. It doesn't count.
......
Prove it's not true.

Provide us with several logical and reasonable arguments as to why ANYONE who is secure with their own sexuality would worry about someone else who can only be attracted to the same gender.

Do you think gay folks spend a great deal of time worrying about who you might want to marry?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169051 Nov 26, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Where has Rose lied?
She asked you for a rational argument. Do you have one?
She said her gas is smart when someone asked for a rational argument. Does she have one?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169052 Nov 26, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it's not true.
Provide us with several logical and reasonable arguments as to why ANYONE who is secure with their own sexuality would worry about someone else who can only be attracted to the same gender.
Do you think gay folks spend a great deal of time worrying about who you might want to marry?
"Provide us with several...bla bla bla"

You sound like my 3rd grade teacher Miss Prissypants!

What a jackass!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169053 Nov 26, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>One hundred fifty odd words and not a single coherent thought between them. Maybe you should start drinking after you have finished posting what you are going to pass off as your thoughts. Reality check cupcake, you're just another malinformed useful idiot and if all you are going to do is babble, you're not worth the effort.
Maybe you should start drinking.

Why do you call another man "cupcake" are you a jackass?

Funny!
Contained

La Puente, CA

#169054 Nov 26, 2012
I though the humpty-dumpty issue was a done deal.

All those load mouths who don't like the issues between adults can suck on raw eggs like most Republicans do.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169055 Nov 26, 2012
Contained wrote:
I though the humpty-dumpty issue was a done deal.
All those load mouths who don't like the issues between adults can suck on raw eggs like most Republicans do.
http://www.hark.com/clips/dwlyfhnyts-cuckoocl...
Hawthorne

La Puente, CA

#169057 Nov 26, 2012
The gentleman from Hawthorne, California needs to file personal lawsuits against all the officers involved. 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the section that he needs to get them in court on. They violated his constitutional rights while operating under the color of law and are personally tort liable. Also kidnapping, unlawful detention and other charges could apply as well. This includes all the officers at the jail that interacted with Mr. Saulmon.

Stop letting thugs and thieves that hide behind badges get away with this. Take them to Federal court in their person. After about 300 of them loose their homes and everything they own the rest might start falling in line. An just so everyone knows, do not ask for less than $175,000.00 in damages or the Federal Courts will view it as a frivolous case.

Hawthorne, California..

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 54 min Little Ricky 15,966
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr Duh 5,015
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 18 hr napalmers 7,933
Judge John D. Freeland is wrong! (Dec '13) Aug 28 Kes 8
Family Aug 27 Baby Girl 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Aug 27 KeS 11
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) Aug 26 KeS 2
•••
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••