Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[For the people]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Shaddup Archibold Flunky.
It applies, that Prop 8 falls against Constitutional thought.

I agree, why vote if it doesn't count. How does one person get to make a decision for the rest of us.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you the asshat who called himself the Doctor? Thought so. Still trolling the streets for 12 year old girls?

No. Are you?

[oneperson-onevoi ce]

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. This is where I want my kids raised. 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.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Real nice way to talk to a lady, sugar nipples. I hope Santa brings you a broken buttplugg

SHUDDUP CREEP! I heard about you.

I hope Santa sh!ts on your head.

[Mike DiRucci]

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be fairly new to this forum. JayBird goes back at least a year or more and has admitted he is queer, he's jsut recently re-appeared to the form although he may have been here under a new "toll" name ... lol trust me he is stone queer

Was one particular jackass named "J-bird56" or some such silly sh!t a while ago used to post dumb stuff just like this jazzybird dope. Thought maybe they're the same.

This one wears a tin foil hat for chrissakes. It doesn't get any better than that.

[Brian_G]

Impeachment Cobblers wrote:

You don't really make any arguments, Brian. You simply slap together some bumper sticker slogans and post them here. When asked to give supporting evidence, actual argument, for them you avoid responding.

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.

[Brian_G]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

BS. Telling people they don't deserve basic, equal human rights is more insulting than any simple name calling, b!tch.

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.

[Pavers]

Track has been cleared, so re start your engines.

[Jazybird58]

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be fairly new to this forum. JayBird goes back at least a year or more and has admitted he is queer, he's jsut recently re-appeared to the form although he may have been here under a new "toll" name ... lol trust me he is stone queer

Come on Bruno, your just pissed because your to flucking ugly to date.
Its about time you chane back to your other name isint?

[Jazybird58]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
SHUDDUP CREEP! I heard about you.
I hope Santa sh!ts on your head.

Poor baby boi, you mad casue Santa gave you a busted up buttplugg? Hit up Bruno

[Big D]

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]

Oposs, whats your malfunction again?

You filled out your mental health papers wrong again.

[Mike DiRucci]

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!

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Slavery in this country always used to be by race, we changed that.

?

[Big D]

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.

[Mike DiRucci]

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]

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

[Mike DiRucci]

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.

[Rose_NoHo]

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?

[Rose_NoHo]

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.