Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,160

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.

Full Story

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171237 Dec 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You might think that you are slick with that, but I do not dance, sir. I get to the point, in spite of any ignorance of the part of the libertines. 2 men or 2 women constitute a mismatched pairing. Not the point of marriage. Marriage is an institution for procreating couples to use in order to establish a continuity of inheritance and unity, closed to any outside interloping or interference.
But, bigfoot, sterile people can marry, so you are wrong!
R Hudson wrote:
Marriage is now being assailed, by the gays, in order to lay claim to a validity that does not have any historical recognition,
Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy.
R Hudson wrote:
and to claim some vast number of governmental rights that were established, in order to protect the family unit. Dance around that. 3 legged dog on a cocaine diet ? I smell dan, with a sock puppet, due to the protracted analogy.
Marriage is a legal contract, marriage is a right.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171239 Dec 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Skinner v Oklahoma wasn't a case about marriage, it was a case about using forced sterilization as a means of punishment.
Why don't you look up the case and read about it if you don't trust me? Can you tell us how marriage laws were changed by Skinner v OK? Wait, they weren't.
You really are an idiot aren't you.

Where does the precedent for marriage as a "right" come from?

Simple question Rose, well, it won't be for you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171240 Dec 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL @ you, simpleton. Keep asking.
Like I said, you can't answer, because you don't know. That makes you the fool Rose.

I guess you can't answer simple questions. What the matter, hasn't you blog given you the correct response yet? We all know you are incapable of drafting your own thoughts.
Answer the question Rose, where is the check on the court?
I know you are dodging because you simply don't know. Why don't you just admit that and I could explain to you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171241 Dec 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy.
You are a living logical fallacy.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#171242 Dec 13, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you can't answer, because you don't know. That makes you the fool Rose.
I guess you can't answer simple questions. What the matter, hasn't you blog given you the correct response yet? We all know you are incapable of drafting your own thoughts.
My blog? What are you babbling about?
akpilot wrote:

Answer the question Rose, where is the check on the court?
Look it up, quit asking me. I'll assign that task to you...LOL.
akpilot wrote:

I know you are dodging because you simply don't know. Why don't you just admit that and I could explain to you.
LOL @ you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171243 Dec 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
My blog? What are you babbling about?
<quoted text>
Look it up, quit asking me. I'll assign that task to you...LOL.
<quoted text>
LOL @ you.
So you cackling hen, you can't answer the question. But hey, that's nothing new.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171246 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The "theft of honor" statement is in reference to the theft of the honor that we bestow upon a man and woman, who have gotten married. And, given the current assault upon the integrity of marriage, The married heterosexual are the war veterans. That's right,"...a title they do not rate.".
But gays never stole any honor from heterosexual couples.

Heterosexual couples had been married and continue to do so therefore any 'honor' you see in their unions is still intact.

Upon pointing to that fact your "point" about gays "steling honor" from opposite sexed couples is moot.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171247 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why must you stoop to sarcasm, and mockery ? I was under the impression that you could debate like a man...
Because you're a pompous fool.

And as it is you yourself utilize sarcasm and mockery or did you forget your little posts advising how great and powerful you are...LOL!!!

You're a hypocrite friend. Besides, you make an easy target.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171248 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do, too. He was considered a stud, no matter which side of the fence you were on...
:-D
Rock Hudson it is then.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171249 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first surprise, then, "konbanwa" wasn't a bad thing after all.
Your second surprise is that I don't care how they live their "personal" lives, I care that traditional definitions are being turned on their ears, to accommodate a small number of citizens. If they want to be gay, then let them. I do not wish to see them legitimized in an official way, as they are aberrations. And to be perfectly honest, I dig 2 women together, who wouldn't want to be with a woman, it's the males that I have a problem with, acting like girls. One of my best friends is in the process of becoming a girl, and while I am trying very hard to not have a problem with it, I find that I cannot accept this. I am not happy with myself, for this, but I am honest with myself. I feel that it is wrong.
Many freedoms and civil rights are allowed a small number of citizens.

Their numbers don't discount the fact they are still citizens and due a full set of rights.

In your obvious disdain of gays I doubt one of your best friends is a transgender. FYI. I think you include this fabrication in here to but some sort of bizarre credence to your hateful rants on gays marrying.

The fact you see gays as 'aberations' as well as their wish to marry is your opinion don't forget and until you become Empororer of the U.S. it stays just that. The fact you're going to have to swallow is by increasing number others are realizing gays wanting to pursue the freedom of marriage because it's being seen as a basic right that should be given to them is taking place hence the increasing number of states allowing gays TO marry.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171250 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
As my ending might have been ambiguous, I am correcting the ending. I feel that his becoming a girl is wrong.
Got it. And your "best friend" is doing it.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171251 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage, or the pairing of man and woman existed long before the existence of anything remotely resembling "legal union". As well as the phenomenon of disapproval of gays.
So did slavery.

So was it that most cultures considered women secondary including women in the U.S. whom weren't allow to vote until the early 1900's.

So was it that a great republic based on democratic principles didn't exist until the late 1700's.

So was it that child labor was accepted until the 1900's.

-We could go on.

Because an aspect of freedom wasn't gained until later in civilization does not paint it wrong Chief.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171252 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You might think that you are slick with that, but I do not dance, sir. I get to the point, in spite of any ignorance of the part of the libertines. 2 men or 2 women constitute a mismatched pairing. Not the point of marriage. Marriage is an institution for procreating couples to use in order to establish a continuity of inheritance and unity, closed to any outside interloping or interference. Marriage is now being assailed, by the gays, in order to lay claim to a validity that does not have any historical recognition, and to claim some vast number of governmental rights that were established, in order to protect the family unit. Dance around that. 3 legged dog on a cocaine diet ? I smell dan, with a sock puppet, due to the protracted analogy.
Your opinion.

I see you dancing. Dancing around the fact American citizens...ALL American citizens are due a full set of liberties unless those liberties produce harm and as of yet you have no proof of viable harm gay marriage causes.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171253 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an institution for procreating couples to use in order to establish a continuity of inheritance and unity, closed to any outside interloping or interference.
Really.

So in your view of marriage infertile couples should not be able to marry.

Interesting.

And as far as any contiuance of "inheritance and unity" marriage is non tangible freedom. There is no "inheritance" other than claiming citizens of this country shoupld be allowed freedoms including that to marry of which gays are...citizens so again any "point" you're attempting to make is moot.

The "unity" aspect is laughable given we're already unified as United States citizens of which there are gays in it's ranks.

Your rantings go nowhere friend outside of speeling out an obvious skewed disdain for a grouping of Americans you don't seem to care for because of your own personal reasons..

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171254 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is now being assailed, by the gays, in order to lay claim to a validity that does not have any historical recognition, and to claim some vast number of governmental rights that were established, in order to protect the family unit.
It's your opinion gays cannot form a family unit when in fact they already have ultiple times.

Historical recognition?

They've been doing it here in our country for some time now and look:

http://www.ranker.com/list/countries-where-ga...

Again any "point" you were attempting to make here is easily stricken down.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171255 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
3 legged dog on a cocaine diet ? I smell dan, with a sock puppet, due to the protracted analogy.
Prove it given I've had no need for a sock puppet.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171256 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first surprise, then, "konbanwa" wasn't a bad thing after all.

Your second surprise is that I don't care how they live their "personal" lives,...
The first was a surprise in the fact all you've managed to do is advertise your dislike of me in here.

Are you now wanting to make nice??

I'll bet my marble collection you too didn't know it's meaning.

And your "second surprise" is a blatant life. Gays getting married IS part of their personal lives you dolt.

LOL!!!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171257 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my best friends is in the process of becoming a girl, and while I am trying very hard to not have a problem with it, I find that I cannot accept this. I am not happy with myself, for this, but I am honest with myself. I feel that it is wrong.
No on here is telling you what to think.

The only direction you're being given is your opinions should not supercede the freedoms we should allow fellow American citizens based simply on your transparent disdain of them.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171258 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you wish to pretend to be another brainiac, complete with non-witty analogies, like dan, huh ? Give it up, sushi-boi, 9 states is a minority, and you know it. They are trading rings, while the fad lasts, but it will not become national policy. Period.
This is Dan you moron.

And allowing liberties to fellow citizens has never been a fad.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#171259 Dec 14, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Tells us that an awful lot of lobbyists are on their knees, subverting national identity. Let me guess, you're a lobbyist ?
"Subverting national identity"...LOL!!!

I love your attempts at muddying the waters.

No friend...I'm no lobbyist. I'm just some character like you voicing my opinion regarding gays being allowed to marry.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... 18 hr Tracy 3
mexican landscapers dump in the desert Dec 11 Jean 22
Re-Thinking Southern California Earthquake Scen... Dec 8 Rick 1
Lower gas prices means more people on the road ... Dec 7 Ronald 6
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Dec 6 Bobbo Yogi 154
Review: Inter-City Plumbing (Jun '09) Dec 3 Jean 11
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) Dec 1 kent 48
Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:45 am PST