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 (Page 8,297)

Showing posts 165,921 - 165,940 of200,315
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190050
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?

Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?

Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.

Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.

Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.

This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.

With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.

The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.

And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.

This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.

If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.

These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.

Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.

Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.

Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190051
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Too wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190052
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Very wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190053
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to go after those causes, go get signatures, fight for those rights that you feel need fighting.
For myself, I donít happen to be gay, but I do stand up for my fellow Americans that are being ( in fewer and fewer states ) denied equal rights.
Procreation is a dead argument, it was stupid when the lawyers brought it up and it was laughed at by the supreme court.
You are damn straight we arenít going to test anyone for fertility whether you want to or not, the ability or intent to have children has never .... ever... been a requirement for a marriage license, because form a legal perspective marriage IS NOT only about having children, and it never was in this country. It is a dead issue, and has no place in the argument over same sex marriage
Oh boy. Big D's "you are free to get signatures" condescending irrelevancy.

With the "SCOTUS laughed at you" twirl thrown in for fun and laughs.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190054
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the finacialn damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.
Here's where I am with regards to the financial implications of legalizing same-gender marriage... Every equal rights movement has come with financial difficulties. There were costs with racial integration and affirmative action. There have been increased costs associated with providing accommodations for the handicapped.

The way I see it, private and public institutions got away without providing these services for decades--even centuries. It was a social expense that should have been incurred all along.

And until the equality is realized, there will be costs associated with these changes.

The system will balance itself one way or another. As you have suggested, maybe governments will decide that it's too expensive to provide benefits and protections to all married couples, so they will slash current benefits that are only available to heterosexual couples.

But until that happens, same-gender couples SHOULD HAVE access to the same benefits AND protections as opposite-gender couples.

Other countries are managing to do this. Why would the U.S. be unable to do this?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190055
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Very wordy.
So sorry... The next time I write a response, I'll take into account your obviously limited attention span.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190057
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
WTF does this rant of talking points have to do with my statement?

While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190058
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Try reading and comprehending what I wrote. Then attempt to present a rational response to it.

As I already stated, this rant has NOTHING to do with the post you are replying to.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190059
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have lost the argument and now you are simply going to say stupid irrational sh$$?
Wipe your mouth, you are drooling.
<quoted text>
Sure does, see Article V US Constitution.
A judge doesn't "evolve" our country. The SCOTUS doesn't "evolve" out country. Only a 3/4th's ratification of the State Legislatures "evolve" this country.
You should read the Constitution, it really doesn't take that long.
<quoted text>
King George and the British Parliament used to say that too.
<quoted text>
What an interesting statement- "Whether they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals."
No truer words have ever been spoken, Constitution be damned, we will get what we want.
BTW, you included that silly line-"you believe". It has nothing to do with "MY" belief, my position on the Constitution is based on the OPINION of those who drafted and ratified it.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? The Madison Journal on the Constitutional Convention? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The transcripts of the ratification debates in the States?
If you answer NO, than I hardly find you even slightly qualified to comment on what is and is not Constitution.
<quoted text>
If marriage is an "Unalienable Right" than is cannot be restricted- not by number, not by gender, not by race, not by ANYTHING!! Since we agree that it can be restricted as has been stated many times when mention of: incest, polygamy etc.; are mentioned it is merely a PRIVILEGE extended to the lucky few.
I haven't read any of the documents you listed.

I am a gay man who wishes to have the right to marry another gay man who is of the age of consent and who is not related to me.

If opposite sex couples have that right, then I believe that I should have that right too.

I don't care how it comes about. I don't care if it comes about through a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. I don't care if it come about by way of an amendment to the Constitution. I don't really give a damn how it comes about. It's what I want and what millions of other tax paying, law abiding, citizens of this country want.

You can argue about the methods we use until you are blue in the face. I do not care. Your worries about the Constitution is of absolutely no concern to me.

As I have said, many people who are much smarter and more powerful than you or I are involved in this issue.

We will get what we want, one way or another.

As Gavin Newsom said, "Whether you like it or not..." http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190060
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Try reading and comprehending what I wrote. Then attempt to present a rational response to it.
As I already stated, this rant has NOTHING to do with the post you are replying to.
You live in a world of abstraction.

I live in reality.

And when I see, for example, a man whose job is not protected by the Family Medical Leave Act, so that he can care for his seriously ill partner of 25 years, while a legally married person can do this, then I know that equality, rights, and protections are not being distributed fairly.

It is inhumane to allow a law to protect one set of people, while another set of people go unprotected--simply because of their orientation.

We live in a country where every medical and scientific association has taken homosexuality off its list of disorders--did so decades ago. Science has determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation--that it has nothing to do with a person's ability to function and contribute to society.

You want to argue procedure. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

The rest of us will be working in reality--with real people who are dealing with real events.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190061
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akaidot wrote:
<quoted text>
I see the parrot is back, anyone have a cracker or perhaps some newspaper for the bottom of the cage?
You are admitting you can't counter my argument.
Don't you ever get sick of being you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190062
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So sorry... The next time I write a response, I'll take into account your obviously limited attention span.
It's not that my attention span is limited, it's that your post was too wordy. You could have said the same thing with 25% of the words. Much less chance of losing your audience.

I read the whole thing and understood it but I was dozing off towards the end!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190063
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
Hey, monster, you have both sets of genes, so if you got married, there would be a duplicate of one gender!:)
BTW, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190064
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, monster, you have both sets of genes, so if you got married, there would be a duplicate of one gender!:)
BTW, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Take down that obscene picture of your stockinged ham hock and high heeled hoof! Take it down right now!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190065
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't read any of the documents you listed.
This is problem #1.

How can you possibly argue the Constitutionality of something not having done so? On what do you base your opinions? Your personal bias? It certainly isn't on the founding principles.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a gay man who wishes to have the right to marry another gay man who is of the age of consent and who is not related to me.
If opposite sex couples have that right, then I believe that I should have that right too.
You are welcome to your opinion and I wish you well.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care how it comes about. I don't care if it comes about through a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. I don't care if it come about by way of an amendment to the Constitution. I don't really give a damn how it comes about.
This is problem #2.

You don't give a damn about how you get your way, just that you get it. So I guess that answers my previous question? You don't really care if something is in line with the Constitution or not, you just want what you want, and if screaming it is unconstitutional not to get what you want regardless of the validity of the statement so be it.

This is why you hear people say the Constitution is being trampled by liberal progressives and activist judges.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's what I want and what millions of other tax paying, law abiding, citizens of this country want.
I can just picture you stomping your feet and pounding your fist;s while saying this.

Grow up, we are a nation of laws, and once we start to ignore those laws simply to pander to personal desires we have reached anarchy.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You can argue about the methods we use until you are blue in the face. I do not care. Your worries about the Constitution is of absolutely no concern to me.
Well, that just says it all doesn't it. You don't give a damn about the Constitution, you just want your cookie.

Seriously, how old are you? I am starting to question this idea what you have a high school diploma, let alone a MSW.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have said, many people who are much smarter and more powerful than you or I are involved in this issue.
They are "smarter" than you because you have made the conscious decision to remain ignorant. You have decided NOT to educate yourself on your nation, it's founding, and it's Constitution.

And by "smarter" it simply means they are more equipped to pull the wool over your eyes, because of your ignorance.

See Problem #1.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We will get what we want, one way or another.
As Gavin Newsom said, "Whether you like it or not..." http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You my friend are far more of a danger to this country than ANY terrorist. As Lincoln said:

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

It is willful ignorance like yours that will bring about our demise. It will continue to bring us elected officials who promise the world rather than promising to uphold the Constitution.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190066
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You live in a world of abstraction.
I live in reality.
No, you live in a fantasy land cloaked as reality.

As I asked before, how can you possibly know if something is Constitutional or not if you remain willfully ignorant of the document?

If you are willing to taint the Constitution to get your way while pretending you are upholding it, you deserve neither.

I see no point in discussing anything further with you. You have shown that you are not interested in actually following the law or the foundational documents of our republic. You are simply interested in stomping your feet until you get what you want, Constitution be damned. This childish attitude combined with your ignorance of the subject matter makes this a discourse which will provide neither an intellectual nor rational discussion, thus to continue would be an exercise in futility.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190067
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are admitting you can't counter my argument.
Don't you ever get sick of being you?
You must first present a rational and valid argument if you wish for someone to counter it.
Seymour Duck

El Monte, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190068
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Bird Boy Again! Holliness is when, You act like God an it sanctifies & separates you.Your doing as your Father did. Well I Pray... Quack

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190069
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you live in a fantasy land cloaked as reality.
As I asked before, how can you possibly know if something is Constitutional or not if you remain willfully ignorant of the document?
If you are willing to taint the Constitution to get your way while pretending you are upholding it, you deserve neither.
I see no point in discussing anything further with you. You have shown that you are not interested in actually following the law or the foundational documents of our republic. You are simply interested in stomping your feet until you get what you want, Constitution be damned. This childish attitude combined with your ignorance of the subject matter makes this a discourse which will provide neither an intellectual nor rational discussion, thus to continue would be an exercise in futility.
Yes, I will continue to stomp my feet until I get what I want.

When Proposition 8 passed in CA, over 10,000 people raced to San Francisco's City Hall so that we could stomp our feet in unison. We continued to stomp our feet and challenged the new policy legally and politically until it came before Judge Walker. He and the three person appellate court ruled that the proposition was--say it with me "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!

Do you have some kind of keen insight that these people and all of their associates do not have?

My guess is that you're just another schlub with anger issues.

You get on here and try to pick fights. I'm not interested.

I state my case and my beliefs.

If you don't want to respond to them, I am happy to be ignored by the likes of you.

If you want to feel superior, then by all means do so.

This is a forum where ideas and beliefs are discussed.

If you want to run it like it's your own personal playpen, I've got news for you; it's not going to happen.

Go create your own topic. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of people who would LOVE to get into these procedural arguments with you.

Until you don the black dress and bang a gavel in a real courtroom, your opinion is worth about as much as mine.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190070
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Take down that obscene picture of your stockinged ham hock and high heeled hoof! Take it down right now!
Why? You don't have the will power to stop playing with yourself when you see it?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 165,921 - 165,940 of200,315
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 22 at 1:54PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••