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
149,641 - 149,660 of 200,590 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171006 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, again with misspelled words....Confucius would say "Do not try to use 5th grade words, when 4th grade words are beyond your scope", as well as "Do not misspell my name" LOL
I gotta ask...

....kAn yU rEeD ThIS DuMfUK?

LOL!!!

I could write the truth out in multicolored CRAYONS dumbass but it would still be the truth.

You unfortunately think your dime sized world should be the law of the land and it must just eat your sorry ass up that it's not.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171009 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the biggest flaw that i can see is that you are trying to reason, at all. And your silly analogies are not effective, either. Donkeys and zebra have nought to do with the topic at hand.
Now, you typed this: "And if you don't believe heterosexual couples and same sexed couples are "not equal at all" ", and, the fact is that I DO believe that are unequal, as they have neither balance, nor procreational abilities, nor do they have the same recognition that heterosexual couples have. They have no place in society. Not to say that they cannot be couples, just no valid reason to call themselves "married". If gaining rights is the point of SSM marriage, they covet something that they do not rate. If the game is rights of inheritance, they can use power of attorney. There is simply NO REASON for a mismatched set of lovers to lay false claim to an honor that isn't theirs to enjoy. SSM is a fruitless endeavor. Empirical evidence is all that you need, to see that. Any further questions are pointless, as the issue is invalid. We are biologically designed to mate as opposite, I don't care if the genitalia is being misused, it is not the proper format, for marriage to be bestowed.
Now, if you have any questions, or wish to explore common sense any further than this, I suggest that you call 1-800-I-AM-A-DUMBASS...Don't forget to call me names and use an analogy that makes little to no sense. If you think that you are Don Rickles, guess again...
Don't forget genius....this is merely your opinion.

By the way....since you're so much into grammar you need to capatilize "I" when referring to yourself.

"...fact is that I DO believe that are unequal..." - Did you mean 'they' perhaps?

"...just no valid reason to call themselves "married"." - Did you mean to say 'there is just no valid reason to call themselves "married".???

---Next time remember....you suck at grammar as much as anyone in here and your opinion does not designate fact.

Just an FYI friend.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171011 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it's quite plain that you have a limited supply of grey matter, but if you think that you are smarter than I am, have I got some heartbreaking news for you...No, you are not. You cannot even spell correctly, even though mis-spelt words are flag with red underscores, or was the purpose of the red squigglies a mystery to you ?
"mis-spelt"???

ROFL!!!!

You mean mis-spelled perhaps??

I wouldn't go for your English teaching degree any time soon Einstein.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171013 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is even less beneficial, for the majority of us, to waste U.S. Government resources, attempting to re-define the term "marriage", for the benefit of less than 10% of the population. Way to go, chump...
Exactly how are 'US. Government resources' going to be allotted towards allowing gays to marry?

What a load of bullshit.

If anything else it's a waste of time and resources to deny them marriage given you and others spend time and efforts to stop them over nothing given you can find no viable harm in it.

You're a moron buddy.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171014 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, again with misspelled words....Confucius would say "Do not try to use 5th grade words, when 4th grade words are beyond your scope", as well as "Do not misspell my name" LOL
Confucius say "Dan is a jackass".

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171016 Dec 12, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Stupid, my claim was: Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage. And it wasn't. It was a case about using forced sterilization as a means of punishment. Were any marriage laws changed because of Skinner?
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171017 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your take" is erroneous. You are witnessing the phenomenon of common sense refusing to be buried. You, surely, cannot expect 90% of us to clam up, so as to allow 10% of the population to take control ? How about simply speaking for your end of the spectrum, the "lower than 56 IQ points" crowd, and not attempting to identify with the smart ones of us that have the real grasp of the situation ?
You mean to to say those who don't agree with your opinion.

Sorry bud.....it's not your world and there's a lot of thinking adults out there.

Too bad for you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171018 Dec 12, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're claiming we don't have checks and balances in our system of government? That was what I said, dummy.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171019 Dec 12, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
...bla bla bla... lots of dumb Dan stuff...bla bla bla...You gotta remember....just because you saw a zebra at the zoo doesn't mean your favorite donkey Ol' Bessie was fooling around with the dalmation 2 houses down the street.
LOL!!!
It doesn't mean she wasn't either.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171020 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...I swear, this boy is a real "Class A" fool....Nothing second rate about his density. And, just out of curiosity, just how portly was his wife, exactly ?
:-D
My wife could weigh in at a whopping 428 pounds and 3 ounces but I'd bet my Pez collection she'd beat anyhthing your lost ass could attract in both intelligence and beauty.....LOL!!!!!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171021 Dec 12, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Loving V Virginia did NOT state that marriage was a "right"-
Yes it did. Anybody can look.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
akpilot wrote:
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.
Whatever, b1tch.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171022 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...I swear, this boy is a real "Class A" fool....Nothing second rate about his density. And, just out of curiosity, just how portly was his wife, exactly ?
:-D
She ain't skinny but she ain't bad. Actually out of Dan's league. He's a lucky man for such a dopey jackass.

I can't bring myself to make fun of his innocent wife even though he's done it to me.

But I won't hesitate to call Dan a loudmouthed jerk! And a real jackass! And dope.

P.S. I think he stopped responding to me, like Rose_NoHo. Can't take the heat. Pussies.

WOOHOO!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171023 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he won't. He's gotten about as far as he can go, and it ain't near enough, by far...
Somehow I don't see you as a college educated man.

See...in college when you take tests they go by facts....not opinions.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171024 Dec 12, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My wife could weigh in at a whopping 428 pounds and 3 ounces but I'd bet my Pez collection she'd beat anyhthing your lost ass could attract in both intelligence and beauty.....LOL!!!!!
Your dopey Pez dispenser collection sucks. Who'd want it?

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#171025 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it's quite plain that you have a limited supply of grey matter, but if you think that you are smarter than I am, have I got some heartbreaking news for you...No, you are not. You cannot even spell correctly, even though mis-spelt words are flag with red underscores, or was the purpose of the red squigglies a mystery to you ?
One THOUSAND, five hundred and fifty nine posts and yet you still cannot identify a viable harm that gay marriage causes.

You're no marksman friend.

LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171026 Dec 12, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow I don't see you as a college educated man.
See...in college when you take tests they go by facts....not opinions.
How would you know?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171028 Dec 12, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are a violent, defective contradiction on fundamental evolutionary principles.
There, no religion.
Smile.
No religion, but still pure BS.
Congrats.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171031 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is even less beneficial, for the majority of us, to waste U.S. Government resources, attempting to re-define the term "marriage", for the benefit of less than 10% of the population. Way to go, chump...
What government resources would be wasted, bigfoot?
Looks like you are going to have to STFU, huh?
Bamboo

Covina, CA

#171039 Dec 12, 2012
And the little hamster runs aroud on the wheel.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171042 Dec 12, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, you knuckle-dragging uni-brow, but you cannot be serious with this? LOL You see no difference between a ritual ceremony, and the description of the ritual ceremony ? You are truly absurd. Do you also believe that the TV set and the manual for the TV set are one and the same ? HAR HAR YUK YUK You are absolutely the dumbest son-of-a-b!tch in here...
I second that. Dan's a dope. Makes him lots of fun!

I like it when he tries to talk all fancy!

WOOHOO!

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 seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Go aways 5,004
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr lazy posts 15,963
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
Judge John D. Freeland is wrong! (Dec '13) Thu Kes 8
Family Wed 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 ]
•••