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
176,841 - 176,860 of 200,564 Comments Last updated 18 hrs ago

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204021
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your opinion, once again.
Duly noted and dismissed, once again.
Troll on, GDK.
Not dismissed, it can't be.

You simply (in every sense of the word) denied reality.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204022
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the truth and reality;
1. It is not "we've all" against me.
2. This particular discussion has not been specifically about marriage. It has been about 'is truth absolute'. You shifted because you were getting your ass kicked again. In fact, it only exposed that you are willing to deny reality and truth in the vain attempt to equate ss couples with marriage. You shown this over and over.
3. I simply point out, that for equal marriage rights, you have to qualify as an equal relationship. Ss couples don't equate from the basic essence of marriage, through all the core key elements.
4. Those facts are not "my truth" or even my opinion. Those facts are simple reality. It is why you violate your 'your truth' premise to argue with me.
5. As to progress, convincing others to join your denial will not budge reality one iota. It only sets up a bigger fall for idiots.
It will be like the people who listened to Obama's BS and now are facing the embarrassing pain of that foolishness.
Excuse me, NSA just knocked on my door.
Snicker.
1.) No idea what you're talking about... Was "we've" meant to be "we're"?

2.) Over the years of my conversations with you, I have never felt like I'm getting my ass kicked. You flatter yourself to believe this to be the case.

3.) Core key elements of marriage... Two people love one another to an extent that they wish to join their lives together in holy and/or legal marriage. You think these people must be opposite gender. I believe that they can be opposite or same-gender.
The reality is that in over 16 countries around the globe and 13 states in the US, my notion about who can enter into marriage is correct and yours is incorrect.

4.) Since marriage is a manmade construct, there are no absolute truths. Go back to your article and read it. The authors were not describing marriage; they were describing how sexual mates are selected between heterosexual couples.
People have been pairing up for eons prior to widespread legal marriage.

5.) Your last comment seems to indicate a level of anger. And since you have already determined that anyone who argues angrily is an indication that they do not believe what they are saying, can I assume that you do not believe what you are saying?
I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Go answer your door.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204023
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are not.
You'll have to explain that...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204024
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You are rude.
Didn't like that one, eh?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204025
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not dismissed, it can't be.
You simply (in every sense of the word) denied reality.
The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204026
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.
Bravo!!
GSK commies

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204032
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Once again the communist in control of china have shown their dirty hand at propaganda and lies.
Ghost of Trayvon Martin

Hazleton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204034
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204035
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

I see that you are all getting tired of the therad
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204036
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Ghost of Trayvon Martin wrote:
I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Traynon's ways live on ... Our president and skinny Al Sharpton will see to that!!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204041
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) No idea what you're talking about... Was "we've" meant to be "we're"?
2.) Over the years of my conversations with you, I have never felt like I'm getting my ass kicked. You flatter yourself to believe this to be the case.
3.) Core key elements of marriage... Two people love one another to an extent that they wish to join their lives together in holy and/or legal marriage. You think these people must be opposite gender. I believe that they can be opposite or same-gender.
The reality is that in over 16 countries around the globe and 13 states in the US, my notion about who can enter into marriage is correct and yours is incorrect.
4.) Since marriage is a manmade construct, there are no absolute truths. Go back to your article and read it. The authors were not describing marriage; they were describing how sexual mates are selected between heterosexual couples.
People have been pairing up for eons prior to widespread legal marriage.
5.) Your last comment seems to indicate a level of anger. And since you have already determined that anyone who argues angrily is an indication that they do not believe what they are saying, can I assume that you do not believe what you are saying?
I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Go answer your door.
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.

If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.

Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.

This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.

As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204046
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.
I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.

If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.

I don't think that is something to celebrate.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204050
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.
If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.
Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.
This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.
As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.
Jesus Christ... Sometimes reading your posts is like herding cats.

Yes, there are absolute truths. If someone chops your head off, you die. That is an absolute truth.

Marriage, being a manmade construct, does not have absolute and universal parameters.

And, yes, I want to change the "historic" definition of marriage because the "historic" definition of marriage does not meet the needs of a segment of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of this country.

Don't throw "history" at me. If we based every single aspect of our lives on the way our ancestors interacted with their environment, then we'd still be hunter/gatherers; living in caves or some other such nonsense.

"Marriage" is no different than any other aspect of people's lives. It isn't static. It has changed multiple times over the eons and depending on which culture you live(d) in.

And talk about childish... You want your marriage to have a "distinct description".

Girl, if you walk into a room of people with your wife and they can't tell that you're married, to one another then you have more problems than just getting to own the "rights" to the word "marriage".

Having same-sex couples legally married in this country has done nothing to your marriage. You know it; I know it...
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204051
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That reminds me of the time I hired a Mexican to paint my back porch. I left him there and went and ran some errands. When I came back he was loading up his stuff in his truck in the front of the house and I asked him "Did you paint my porch already?" He said "It wasn't a porch, it was a Mercedes." Lo and behold he had painted my vintage Mercedes I keep in the backyard with house paint and a brush!
Maybe is your fault for slurring your words. You need to put the bottle and drugs down you clown. Also your dago accent doesn't help you nut-sack
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204054
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Ghost of Trayvon Martin wrote:
I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Tell it to fat Frizzo ...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204060
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.
If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.
Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.
This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.
As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.
You still got nothing. Repetition = the argument of fools.

Guess what? You're still a c*nt, and I'm still legally married.

Smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204061
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.[/QUJOTE]

"diverse gendered"
"mutual sterile"
"duplicated gendered"

LOL!! You're so f*cking stupid!!

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]<quo ted text>
If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.
I don't think that is something to celebrate.
"hijacking" !!! LOL!!!

Dear, straight people are still able to marry. No hijacking has occurred. But don't let reality get in the way of your run on sentences!!!

Smile.
Stupid mumbas

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204063
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Previous cases in the UAE have raised similar questions, with alleged sexual assault victims facing charges for sex-related offenses.

Other legal codes also have been criticized for being at odds with the Western-style openness promoted by Dubai.
Tuipd

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204066
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

tuipid frank - keeps leaking all over.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204068
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.
If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.
I don't think that is something to celebrate.
You simply point pout that you cannot accept reality

no one has hijacked anything, I was married before same sex couples, I am still married, no change, no harm.

The reality is that same sex couples are married, and recognized at the state and federal level.

Now if your marriage was hijacked, I am not surprised, I cannot imagine you being in a very strong mirage in the first place. No harm came to my marriage

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.

Other Recent Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 3 hr Donny B 7,922
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) Aug 24 jram1970 88
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Aug 24 Mono 4,996
Recent reports of bodies found/murders in Orovi... Aug 19 Justsaying 1
Review: VALLEY HOME CENTERS Aug 16 Scott Alexander 1
Review: Oroville Tacos Aug 9 Steve M 1

Search the Oroville Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Oroville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oroville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oroville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••