Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#171709 Dec 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Your reasons for keeping marriage male/female are valid even if they aren't verbose. You don't have to engage every argument, especially if those arguments are made by rude or obnoxious people.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; marriage has always been male/female.
Slavery in this country always used to be by race, we changed that.
Pavers

West Covina, CA

#171710 Dec 20, 2012
Oposs, whats your malfunction again?

You filled out your mental health papers wrong again.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171711 Dec 20, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Poor baby boi, you mad casue Santa gave you a busted up buttplugg? Hit up Bruno
Santa didn't come yet you dipsh!t jackass! He comes on Christmas. What a dope.

What's a butt plug? And why would I want one? You got one? What color?

P.S. You're a CREEP!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171712 Dec 20, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery in this country always used to be by race, we changed that.
?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#171713 Dec 20, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
?
It was in response to this "marriage has always been male/female"

Just because something used to be that way, doesn’t make it a good thing.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171714 Dec 20, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery in this country always used to be by race, we changed that.
Like you DISHONESTLY changed your assertion that "Clinton's impeachment failed" to "all the intents and objectives listed in the impeachment failed"?

And then called me a liar to deflect further from your original lost argument.

Nice! Liberal rules.

P.S. Are you ever going to tell us what these "intents and objectives listed in the impeachment" are? I cannot find them.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#171715 Dec 20, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Like you DISHONESTLY changed your assertion that "Clinton's impeachment failed" to "all the intents and objectives listed in the impeachment failed"?
And then called me a liar to deflect further from your original lost argument.
Nice! Liberal rules.
P.S. Are you ever going to tell us what these "intents and objectives listed in the impeachment" are? I cannot find them.
Do you really want me to start re-posing that same post again over and over in this thread too?

Give it a break Mike

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171718 Dec 20, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want me to start re-posing that same post again over and over in this thread too?
Give it a break Mike
I want you to stop falsely accusing me of lying. I have not lied. You have.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171719 Dec 20, 2012
oneperson-onevoice wrote:
Well now the lesbians will be walking around putting chapstick on their chapped carpet burned looking noses. And the pole smokers will be walking around craming things in their neck to desensitize their gag reflex.
Most "pole smokers" are straight women, but I wouldn't expect you'd have any experience in that area.
oneperson-onevoice wrote:
This is where I want my kids raised.
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
oneperson-onevoice wrote:
It blows me away that a teacher now can teach such behavior is acceptable. I mean if you want to eat clam tacos or bologna ponies thats cool. If you like those things in your neck or face, cool. But thats not enough. You think all of society should have it in their neck and face also. Marriage never was about where to put what in or on each other. It was made ugly by sects of people who couldnt come up with a name for the unity of their little sickies.
WE.ARE FASTLY BECOMING A GENDER MUTE NATION. IT TROUBLES ME WHEN BOYS ARE GIRLS AND GIRLS ARE BOYS AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS GOOD WITH IT.
Sexually insecure?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171720 Dec 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Your reasons for keeping marriage male/female are valid even if they aren't verbose.
You didn't keep your marriage male/female. You got a divorce.
Brian_G wrote:
You don't have to engage every argument, especially if those arguments are made by rude or obnoxious people.
You're a rude and obnoxious person.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; marriage has always been male/female.
14th Amendment, equal protection clause, stupid.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That would include women and men.

And you are appealing to tradition, a logical fallacy.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171721 Dec 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals; they marry under the same laws as everyone else. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
If you are offended by political opponents who argue to protect male/female marriage; maybe you're just over sensitive. Get over yourself; everyone has a right to their opinion.
Men and women don't marry under the same laws. There is a gender test.
Gay marriage doesn't harm male/female marriage, divorce does. You got divorced. You are the one who harmed male/female marriage. So, you should STFU, you stupid, hypocritical b!tch. That's my opinion. And you even said, I have the right to it.
Chrisnris

Hesperia, CA

#171722 Dec 20, 2012
I believe that there are great marriages and their are horrible ones too, but being gay or straight doesn't have anything to do with it. Everybody should have the same rights regardless, if we were talking about employment rights and if somebody who is gay was being discriminated against for being that way than there would be a lawsuit against their employer. We are only asking for the same rights as everybody else we don't want to be discriminated against, we only want the right straight people have had for years. Are we not deserving of that?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171723 Dec 20, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most "pole smokers" are straight women, but I wouldn't expect you'd have any experience in that area.
<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
<quoted text>
Sexually insecure?
Mike's Law: Morons who dream up "Laws" and name them after themselves are silly.
Impeachment Cobblers

Capitol Heights, MD

#171724 Dec 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Your reasons for keeping marriage male/female are valid even if they aren't verbose. You don't have to engage every argument, especially if those arguments are made by rude or obnoxious people.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; marriage has always been male/female.
You don't give reasons, Brian, you just give slogans. There is no cause and effect shown, no supporting evidence, just some unfounded commentary. Little more than opinion. If I say the sky is green I really ought to provide some evidence. I can even give you reasons for it appearing blue (or gray, or red, depending upon time of day and weather conditions). OTOH, you simply make some claims and fail to back them up with substance. That is why you get insulted. You make idiotic comments, and get called an idiot.

You make the comment that people are obnoxious. Well Brian, you're bumper sticker slogans are quite tedious. Which is obnoxious to some.

Carry on by all means, it seems to be the limit of your capability.
Impeachment Cobblers

Capitol Heights, MD

#171725 Dec 20, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

Gay marriage doesn't harm male/female marriage...
Brian, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is repeatedly claimed that permitting same sex marriage will harm marriage. But when asked to give supporting evidence, all we get is the chirping of crickets. Nada, zip, zilch. You cannot show any harm, claiming there will be is not evidence.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171726 Dec 20, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
<quoted text>
That's because you never answer them jackass!

Want them to stop? TRY ANSWERING THEM!

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171728 Dec 20, 2012
Impeachment Cobblers wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is repeatedly claimed that permitting same sex marriage will harm marriage. But when asked to give supporting evidence, all we get is the chirping of crickets. Nada, zip, zilch. You cannot show any harm, claiming there will be is not evidence.
The slippery slope. It has validity. If we grant same sex marriage what will we say when other groups demand their reform of marriage be given equal consideration? Polygamy, incest marriage etc. If marriage means everything, it means nothing.

In practice I don't see it as an obstacle to SSM because the numbers are insignificant. But to dismiss it as invalid is dishonest.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
SSOOTP

West Covina, CA

#171730 Dec 20, 2012
Same Stupid Out Of Town Poster.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#171731 Dec 20, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike's Law: Morons who dream up "Laws" and name them after themselves are silly.
You bet sugar nipples. One day soon you might not be stuck on stupid.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#171733 Dec 20, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically, what you are saying, is that you don't want to read a rational argument against SSM, um OK, don't read it. But it makes perfect sense, and you know it. So, snore away, while the adults deal with it.
Oh snap, we all have been waiting for a rational argument against SSM, when will you be posting one?

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
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) Aug 24 rusure 16
NO DRUGS in PARKS Aug 21 NO POT IN OUR BANKS 1
Oakdale's finest. (Dec '09) Aug 19 sissy 4
Miserable dispicable, Louise Singleton Aug 18 Concerned neighbor 2
News Will men's salon be bust due to its titillating... (Jun '06) Aug 15 Riverbank resident 4
public officials violating federal laws Aug 12 KeS 10
Does anyone know where is the Cinco De Mayo fes... (May '12) Aug 12 KeS 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oakdale Mortgages