Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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

#174342 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another liar?
Oh no, just someone terribly misinformed

A lair would be someone that makes up something and says that someone else said that when they did not.

A mistake, or lack of education is one thing, falsifying what others say is something totally different.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#174343 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing irresponsible games.
Demanding we head down a road while ignoring the destination.
Not only do you once again expose the weakness of your argument, you expose the lack of character that goes with it.
Smirk.
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
and you're not playing games yourself? you're dilluting a relationship two consenting adult want to solemnize with vows and obtain those rights the GAO listed a few yrs back (totaling to just over 1300) that are extended to only legally married couples. you're the one trying to tell us that anything other than a male/female married relationship isn't worthy of those vows to one another. you're the one that's smirking at you own (lack) of with, chum, not us.
the issues at hand are regarding the legal contract between 2 consenting adults that wish to marry. stick to the topic. when you can rationally discuss with insulting people, then chime in. without the smartasz smirks and ridiculous comparisons. until then, let the grownups talk at the grown up table.
I ask two serious pertinent questions, and you recklessly slough them off, claiming it's okay because "you play games too".

Once again you expose the weakness of your argument, the lack of character you possess, and now you add to it silly immaturity.

You mistake the sinking of the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twisted with a smirk for a cheap smartasz comment. Hardly the same.

Go back to your video games and gay porn.

Smirk.
Redux

Monrovia, CA

#174344 Jan 11, 2013
Tin Foil clowns from out of towners are psoting again.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174345 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you would have preferred Europe be Islamic much sooner than it will be? Read about the Ottoman Empire for a taste of what is coming.
Do you know anything but gay twirl and bigotry about history?
But the bottom line is, you are excusing the slaughter of innocent people in horrific barbarity by equating it to a dissimilar situation that may or may not be horrific. Put simply, you are saying two wrongs make a right.
Wrong.
the effect of the Crusades :

http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/crus...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174346 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing irresponsible games.
Demanding we head down a road while ignoring the destination.
Not only do you once again expose the weakness of your argument, you expose the lack of character that goes with it.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
I ask two serious pertinent questions, and you recklessly slough them off, claiming it's okay because "you play games too".
Once again you expose the weakness of your argument, the lack of character you possess, and now you add to it silly immaturity.
You mistake the sinking of the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twisted with a smirk for a cheap smartasz comment. Hardly the same.
Go back to your video games and gay porn.
Smirk.
sounds like you know a lot about that sort of stuff. good luck with that chum.

the reality is that judges have ruled in favor of striking down Prop 8 and DOMA is teetering on it's last lungfuls of air as we wait until March when the Supreme Court considers the cases.

your opinions indeed mean nothing in light of the writings of judges. you, in the end, are a mere internet stranger with no credibility, in stark contrast to that of seated judges.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#174347 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe they'll read & educate themselves.
i doubt it, but at least it's there for those that prefer to educate themselves.
i love it when the proclaim just how it fell....and historical fact proves them wrong. typically those guys go off in a huff-n-puff, trying to protest that what is written, vetted and published is wrong and that they are the correct ones in the discussion, yet have nothing to substantiate their claims. LOL. makes me think of how a balloon sounds when it looses it's air. pffffffft.
have a great weekend, bigD
Yes, I have found that most people that have it THAT wrong are more interested in believing what is not true, than knowing what is.

You too, looking forward to a nice weekend!:)
Mikey DiRucci

Union City, CA

#174348 Jan 11, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, just someone terribly misinformed
A lair would be someone that makes up something and says that someone else said that when they did not.
A mistake, or lack of education is one thing, falsifying what others say is something totally different.
It seems everyone who disagrees with you is a liar. We've all allegedly "made up something and said that you said it when you did not".

And it always happens just as you are losing the argument. And you never accuse anyone who agrees with you of it. Funny that.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174350 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the slaughter of Christians in arenas deserved to go on?
No one screamed 'what about the children' just like you.
Do you even understand what you are defending?
Ho.
I just stated a truth, that Christianity helped to destroy Rome. Not saying what, if anything, should or shouldn't have been done about it.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174351 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning about flat (also a pun referring to your chest, and not your ass).
Snicker.
My chest, flat? LOL! You are such an idiot.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174353 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Because he's not really interested in polygamy. He's interested in whining.
He's just trolling.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174354 Jan 11, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Topix mimics life. You are officially a loser that no one what’s around. Good riddance mike/rock, I won’t miss you.
The only reason that you would not miss me is because I make a you look like the idiot that you are.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174355 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm right behind you. With 4 times. And working on 5! WOO HOOO!
It means you're hitting the sweet spot for sure!
:-D
Mikey DiRucci

Union City, CA

#174356 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
He's just trolling.
Limiting the number of husbands a woman has seems to me just as much an infringement as limiting the gender of whom that woman can marry.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174357 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, stupid, polygamy is a red herring. It's not the issue, the issue is gay marriage. Why not start a forum to talk about polygamy? Too dumb to know how to do that? That's my guess.
That would be about as far as you can get, in your pursuit of critical thinking skills...guesswork, blundering about, in the dark. Lost and clueless. Like when you thought you'd gotten the better of me, asking to name some of the books I'd made mention of, and i gave you about 50, or so, titles. And then you had to drop the subject, because you'd been made a fool of. And you knew...I mean, guessed it.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174358 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Reported.
What, exactly, can you mean by that ? As if you haven't had me banned already, you think that you have something to report ? OMG, what a fool you are.
Uh-oh, if you have reported me, do you think that they might ban me ? Heavens to murgatroyd, that would hurt me, right in my heart, where I'm sensitive, and shit.....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#174359 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the effect of the Crusades :
http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/crus...
It seems to me you agree with me, as the article does.

Does that still neutralize the barbarity of the Roman arena?

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174360 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's untrue; Rose has posted this lie many times before.
Most same sex marriage supporters don't care about the truth and will post anything to 'win' the argument. If you care about truth, keep marriage male/female.
I believe the person who said you are divorced, not you.
You are a vile person, and I often find the "save marriage" folks are divorced.
And your "argument" in this post makes no sense. Even if I were the biggest lair on earth, that wouldn't be a good reason to deny US citizens basic, equal, human rights, you dumb b1tch.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174361 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Reported.
Ooohh, Chongo is reporting me, for what ? Dissatisfaction at being banned ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#174362 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
sounds like you know a lot about that sort of stuff. good luck with that chum.
the reality is that judges have ruled in favor of striking down Prop 8 and DOMA is teetering on it's last lungfuls of air as we wait until March when the Supreme Court considers the cases.
your opinions indeed mean nothing in light of the writings of judges. you, in the end, are a mere internet stranger with no credibility, in stark contrast to that of seated judges.
Child, child, child.

Can a judge overrule reality? Commonsense?

You have no answer for two simple assertions;

1. The government has NO interest in protecting or supporting a friendship.

2. It is unconstitutional bias to selectively support friendships.

Moreover, you deny the most basic roots of marriage. A cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Snicker.
Mikey DiRucci

Union City, CA

#174363 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>The only reason that you would not miss me is because I make a you look like the idiot that you are.
Censorship sucks, eh? But what does it say about the bias of the censors? It says they've lost the argument. They know it, we know it.

I guess certain opinions must stay unregistered. No problem.

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
Legalize COCKFIGHTING in AGRI ZONINGS to fund p... (Feb '13) Tue Un agenda 21 and ... 13
Mrs moller May 22 proud mother 3
Review: Massage By Karin (at Embody Day Spa) May 18 jjberri 1
Review: Wiegand Cort V Attorney At Law May 14 Walmart 1
Azenth Castillo she will try to take your man k... (Jul '13) May 12 friend 6
News Suspect in fatal Oakdale shooting dies in Stani... (Jan '13) May 10 Hard knox 22
News Ryan Neal Mazzariello, 25, of Oakdale suspected... (Nov '12) May 5 Emily 48
More from around the web

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]