Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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.

Full Story

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170619 Dec 9, 2012
Dan C wrote:
Boring.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170621 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, You show your inability to understand valid reasoning. Second, The 14th Amendment does not require anyone to marry.
But, it requires that people get equal protection under the law. You do know it was sited in Loving v VA? You do know what was a case about marriage?
R Hudson wrote:
Third, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents.
Why do homophobes object to the word? And all words are invented.
R Hudson wrote:
It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and in doing so declares mainstream doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. You'll have to define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.
LOL! If you are opposed to homosexuality, you are homophobic, by definition really. Sort of like a person who is opposed to white people would be racist.
R Hudson wrote:
And, finally, fourth, gay marriage isn't an institution, yet, and it won't be. It is a flash in the pan, and will disqualified soon.
No, it will be legal in all 50 soon, and in less than a generation, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170624 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your insults are a poor substitute for logic. Second, I did not say any such thing, show where I did, along with showing where I said that I approve of slavery. Third, you are describing a scenario that does not match with the first one that I tore apart. This is a different one. And you are also mixing your genders,
If gender isn't the issue, why would that matter any more than mixing hair colors?
R Hudson wrote:
now, misdirection again, as described by AKPilot. Neither will be allowed to marry in the majority of states, because SSM is still illegal in most states. Not a gender issue, an issue of sexual behavior.
You claim it's an issue of sexual behavior? It's not. No matter what type of sexual behavior a woman engages in, she isn't allowed to marry a woman in all 50. And why not? Because gender is the issue.
R Hudson wrote:
Dragging in some garbage about inter-racial marriage is a poor attempt at obfuscation. We aren't destroying any myths about SSM, with that inter-racial garbage.
Did you just learn the word "obfuscation"? Well, learn how to use it properly before you use it again.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170625 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
AKPilot,
Please, carry on, destroying Chongo....
Get a room.
WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170626 Dec 9, 2012
Club members rule.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170627 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Tactic 1 and 2
<quoted text>
Tactic 1 and 2 again.
Misdirect as she knows damn well the terms we are talking about are LOLSER and CONDUMB not Equal and Rights. This could also fall into the "acting stupid" category.
<quoted text>
Tactic 1
<quoted text>
Tactic's 2,3 and 7
Good work Rose, I am proud of you.
Rose tactic #1- Act stupid-(not so sure it is an act)
Rose Tactic #2- Misdirect
Rose Tactic #3- Make stupid comments until opposition is tired of replying then claim victory
Rose Tactic #4- Attack the poster- scream Racist, Bigot, Homophobe
Rose Tactic #5- Act intelligent by making silly statistical references such as- Most people who have anal sex are straight-
Rose Tactic #6- Falsely accuse others of lies- when proven wrong through links to previous posts revert back to tactics 2 and 4.
Rose Tactic #7- Claim to have made an argument, then claim others can't counter the argument that doesn't actually exist.
akpilot's only tactic - post his stupid list and avoid dealing with my argument.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170628 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I highly doubt that I am the first, and the internet is the only place- you have been called a moron.
That is probably why you get so upset about it.
You can't argue against my arguments, so you'll just call me names.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170629 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a room.
Get a job.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170630 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
akpilot's only tactic - post his stupid list and avoid dealing with my argument.
That'd be #2.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170632 Dec 9, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like there's a shift taking place.
"One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-pl...
Boring.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#170635 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so stupid. Training is not "union dependent", that is to say, that training happens with, or without, union presence. Dumbass. Any boss that wishes to have a job performed, correctly, will provide training. Idiot. Are you seriously purporting that the only reason a boss provides training is because the union showed up and demanded it ? Schmuck. Get real. I have enough backbone to stand on my own, and get what I want, without the presence of a crowd of thugs, standing behind me. You really are stupid, you know that ? I do not "do without', as you have claimed, and I have myself to thank for that, not your mafia-backed gang of cut-throats. Chicken-shyte. If you were a real man, you'd have enough backbone to walk in to any man's office, or woman's, for that matter, and speak clearly, and achieve your goals. Are you afraid to make eye contact with someone ? Putz. Go ahead and pay your dues, junior, as any coward does, who needs to belong to a large group, in order to be heard. Don't try to understand me, as comprehension of a real man is plainly beyond your grasp. F**K the unions.
lol ... you clearly are the idiot, my union teaches a skill, we are not cut-throats, we are on the top of our game that is why th employer pays us what we are worth. Our lowest pay scale is $37 hr. and we have the best medical and pension around, go choke on y our bosses manhood you little scab
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#170637 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny that you "small government" con dumb think government should be in charge of enforcing traditions. Do you think someone who gives a couple something made of china instead of cotton for their second anniversary should go to jail?
BTW, unless a non consenting party is involve, and act can't be immoral. So, unless someone is forced into a gay marriage, it can't be immoral.
WTF? here have some bananas

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170641 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you that the nonsense in your head was no substitute for actual proof. You cannot show me saying that I approve of it. Men and women do have equal rights to marry.
Just not true.
If a man walks into the JP and asks to marry a woman, he'll be told "yes", if a woman does the same thing, she'll be told "no".
Has nothing to do with sexual behavior. The JP won't even ask.
"Yes" != "no".
R Hudson wrote:
Neither gender has a sanction against their right to marry. Women are as free to marry, as men are.
Blacks and whites were both free to marry before Loving v VA. But still laws against inter-racial marriage violated the 14th Amendment.
R Hudson wrote:
And homosexuality is behavioral, not orientation.
Are you straight?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170645 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Marriage is a public act. We do have equal rights. Women and men are able to marry. Inter-racial marriage is allowed. Any person of
legal age and competence is allowed to marry.
Not an equal right.
R Hudson wrote:
2) Homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between same sex couples, not anal sex.
Tell KiMare that.
R Hudson wrote:
And your made up "fun fact" about hetero couples engaging in more anal sex than gay couples is a lie.
Really? What percentage of the population is made up of gay males?
R Hudson wrote:
3) Because same-sex couples cannot create a child-producing combination by themselves, their relationship is a recreational activity more like tennis than like marriage.
Feel the same way about heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to reproduce?
R Hudson wrote:
4) We think that you WERE aborted.
Looks like they got your face with the abortion scalpel, bigfoot!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170646 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) No, Loving v VA was about ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, not gay marriage. Stop tactic #2'ing, right now.
Loving v VA was a case about equal rights WRT marriage.
R Hudson wrote:
2) We object to the misuse of the word to define anyone who opposes the
legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot.
Then quit being a hate filled bigot.
R Hudson wrote:
The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When gays use the term, they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” as a rhetorical weapon against its
opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and, in doing so, declares mainstream doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. It is fallacious and specious. Abuse of language is a dangerous thing.
3) It is not "phobic" at all, it is sensibility. And can you define any differences between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?
Can you define any differences between racist and non-racist opposition to all white people?
R Hudson wrote:
4) No, it won't. Common sense will prevail.
Equality will prevail.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170647 Dec 9, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF? here have some bananas
Bruno + R Hudson = cat fight!
LOL. It's funny to watch you two scratch at each other.
Just make sure your gel tips have finished curing first!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170648 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
AND for Gods sake, talking about proper use of words, the word is "cited", not "sited"...fer crying out loud. Your attempt to look clever is diminished, when you misuse simpler words than any that you have seen me use.
Easy, dude, you should try to read up on "Basic English For Beginners"...
You were attacking your own post. LOL!
WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170649 Dec 9, 2012
Keepers of the flame.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#170653 Dec 9, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to put a chink in the armor of "Procreation is irrelevant in marriage" tell em you support incest marriage. Listen to the stuttering and double talk! Fun!
I do. I support all forms of marriage among consenting adults. I find some of the biggest bigots against less common forms of marriage are same sex marriage advocates. Funny that. You'd think maybe they are hypocrites.
Hypocrisy is not a valid reason to deny someone’s rights. Why don’t you make negative posts to people who only support opposite sex marriages with only two people?

Since: Dec 12

Herndon, VA

#170654 Dec 9, 2012
Everyone seems to be moving off topic? Here's a way to get back on it!?

http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court...

:):)

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stanislaus county Embezzles hundred of thousand... (Nov '08) 5 hr KeS 9
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) 5 hr KeS 3
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 5 hr Bucketeers 7,967
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 11 hr do it here 16,011
Crook in Arnold Sep 28 henry 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sep 28 No Time for Tea 5,084
Review: 5 Star Auto Sales Inc (Aug '10) Sep 26 motownx 6
Oakdale Dating
Find my Match

Oakdale Jobs

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 ]