Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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
Weaved

Covina, CA

#170934 Dec 11, 2012
Danna Cee - take it to the limit, then shut up.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170935 Dec 11, 2012
'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.

It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.

Just my take.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170936 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.
Dan is a big Rose_NoHo fan. Looks up to her. Thinks she's intelligent and insightful!

I heard all those pompous iceholes had a BBQ once. Can you imagine? Too funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170937 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.
It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.
Just my take.
That 2nd to last sentence is a real doozy!

Just my take.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170938 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying
That is a nonsensical question. You are asking someone to prove a negative. The fact is, and you can dance around it all you like, but the SCOTUS has never ruled anything other than the union of a man and a woman to be a marriage.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?
Why would they mention it? Each and every case involved one man and one woman, there was no reason to mention the obvious. But if you want to get anal, it would come at the very beginning of the decision when they named the plaintiffs and the defendants.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!
You are the one having trouble with reading comprehension. I was answering to the fact that you said they "COULD" and what a leap that would be as it would require them to completely ignore the 10th Amendment.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170939 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
This all could easily change.
Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?

"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."

I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."

Keep trying Dan, you will get there.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170940 Dec 11, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.
On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes
First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California
If the court was going to do this, they wouldn't have taken the case as that is EXACTLY the way it stands now.

Get a clue Dan.
MXpilot

Covina, CA

#170941 Dec 11, 2012
A Fox News contributor was punched in the face during a pro-union protest December 11, 2012 Tuesday in Michigan.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170943 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet if someone went back over the last few pages of posts, they would find that you have posted the terms LOLSER and and CONDUMB more than I have.
You use it daily Rose. It doesn't help your argument one bit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170944 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage. It was a case concerning using forced sterilization as a form of punishment for crime.
You should call the court and let them know they got it wrong in Loving V Virginia when they used the precedent set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma that marriage is a "right" when they made their decision.

I am sure they would love to hear from ya Rose.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170945 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the court's job. Why do you think we have checks and balances,
Really Rose? Where is the check on the court?

You would know the answer to this if you actually studied the writings of the founder's. But since you haven't you will simply reply with more of your nonsense that has no meaning or relevance to the argument.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170946 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?
"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."
I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."
Keep trying Dan, you will get there.
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????

WTF???

LOL!!!!

Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.

And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.

You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170947 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Actually Loving V Virginia did NOT state that marriage was a "right"- Skinner v Oklahoma did, they just affirmed it. Not once does the court say "Marriage is a Right" outside of the reference to Skinner v Oklahoma Rose.

That's why they cited Skinner v Oklahoma. Stop trying to act as if you understand law because you watch Judge Judy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170948 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????
WTF???
LOL!!!!
Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.
And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.
You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!
Well, that certainly is your opinion, but your opinion really doesn't matter. As of right now the only group which is legally recognized with a "fundamental right" to marriage is those comprised of one man, one woman. That is why there is a case at the SCOTUS.

And it doesn't matter how angry you get, those facts don't change.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170949 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that certainly is your opinion, but your opinion really doesn't matter. As of right now the only group which is legally recognized with a "fundamental right" to marriage is those comprised of one man, one woman. That is why there is a case at the SCOTUS.
And it doesn't matter how angry you get, those facts don't change.
My opinion.

Funny...but it's my opinion that marriage and the definition of marriage are the same.

Brother...you're stupid. Sorry to bring it to your front door but you're dumber than as wet bag of hair.

LOL!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170950 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
pssssssst....
....pssssssssst..
..no one cares.
FYI.
You do Dan! Or else you wouldn't respond. Duh.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170951 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion.
LOL!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170952 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion.
Funny...but it's my opinion that marriage and the definition of marriage are the same.
Brother...you're stupid. Sorry to bring it to your front door but you're dumber than as wet bag of hair.
LOL!!
Was someone suppose to be able to pull something intelligent from this post?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170953 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion.
Funny...but it's my opinion that marriage and the definition of marriage are the same.
Brother...you're stupid. Sorry to bring it to your front door but you're dumber than as wet bag of hair.
LOL!!
What does this post mean? Anybody know?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#170954 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"To the contrary, we have many competent members (but not all of them are competent), you can not to do my job without the proper training (as in any industry), you need to know what the hell you are doing to get the job done right (as with any job) and the employer knows it, that is why they agree to our demands (seems to mean that you suggest the union demands are met, because the union demands proper training, even though training occurs in all jobs, union and non-union alike). You are just a loser (can't see how) and can't stand it. You are willing to do without in order to survive (no, I'm not, I do very well).
It's people like you with no back bone to fight for a better living while your employer reeps the benefits (people like me ? Hah! I do very well, without your gang doing anything for me). You can call it extortion or anything else you want, the employers are the same way if not worse. You will never figure it out you scab.(I have figured it out, I don't need the union to make my own way, very nicely, too.)
"Live Better Work UNION" (is a catch phrase for cowards with no backbone or bargaining ability.)
Go talk to your boss like a man, if you can, I talk to mine every day, and I tell him what's on my mind, whenever I want to. Even told him the other day that I like the hell out of him, but that, 1/2 the time, I want to smack the shyte out of him. Did I get fired ? No. Did I get beaten up ? No. We talk, as real men do. If I want something, I go to his office, and request 5 minutes of his time. He always makes the time for me. You should try working away from the shadow of fear.
Seems to me that the union is not necessary for proper training to occur. Why should I go FK myself ? The union has all the FK'ing going on. they are raping idiots, like you...
Whilst I am sure that this "spinless" was supposed to be "spineless", it wasn't spelled properly. Nonetheless.....You are the spinless[sic] one, as you have no balls to use, apart from the ones that your union gives you. Dumb ? Why don't you ask the union to send you back to school, so that you may learn to spell properly?
Nah, I shan't go FK myself. But I MAY go wipe my a$$ with my union membership card, after I am done using it, when it expires. I will continue to reep[sic] the benefits from it, until it is out-of-date. Go and call the Hoffa Hotline and report me for that.
lol you sicko ... we all know what you do for your boss behind closed doors you homo. You are pathedic and need mental treatment

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
Turlock candidate has long history in Stanislau... (Oct '06) Nov 7 Joe 6
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) Nov 2 Riverbank resident 13
Any Milfs In The Modesto-Merced Area? (May '13) Nov 1 missymarie 9
1 1 marriage (Mar '13) Oct 31 nik_James 2
swinger Oct 31 nik_James 1
Crook in Arnold Oct 23 Commander Bunny 3
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Oct '14 Riverbank resident 105
Oakdale Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:02 pm PST