Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162217 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I can read just fine. I'm worried about you though. The case YOU sited is the one that proves you wrong. How is it that escapes you?
<quoted text>Yeah, and they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. Have you been drinking?
<quoted text>Exactly which part did I miscomprehend? The part where you said marriage isn't a right, or the part where the United States Supreme Court says it is?
Any Milk Runs lately? I've got one next week.
Yawn.. Reading comprehension- try it.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162218 Oct 5, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Gay Sex is Against the Constitution, Says Judge Scalia
http://politix.topix.com/item/2383-gay-sex-is...
what a quote factory that Justice Antonin is!
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162219 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
akpilot wrote:
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.
I have no trouble whatsoever, and your condescension on such easily verifiable fact is making you look foolish. You didn't say it was a "right with restrictions", you said it was NOT a Right:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage..
Now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong, or are you going to persist in backpedaling and pretending that your statement was misconstrued?
akpilot wrote:
Yawn.. Reading comprehension- try it.
Right back atya, sport.

Nothing to say about the Milk Run or the cut? Every AK pilot knows what I'm talking about. Why is it you don't seem to?
akpilot wrote:
BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.
Actually his opinion doesn't matter, as it was decided in 1967.
Jim Beam

Beacon, NY

#162220 Oct 5, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Gay Sex is Against the Constitution, Says Judge Scalia
http://politix.topix.com/item/2383-gay-sex-is...
In the first place what does sodomy have to do with the topic of this thread? Secondly the Supreme court already struck down ALL sodomy laws making them ALL null and void in 1973! Thirdly if sodomy was still against the law there would be a hell of a lot of US heteros in jail because approximately 34% of US partake in anal sex with our girlfriends and or wives! But once again,what does that have to do with the topic of Marriage equality in the state of California? Care to try again? LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162221 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
<quoted text>I have no trouble whatsoever, and your condescension on such easily verifiable fact is making you look foolish. You didn't say it was a "right with restrictions", you said it was NOT a Right:
<quoted text>Now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong, or are you going to persist in backpedaling and pretending that your statement was misconstrued?
<quoted text>Right back atya, sport.
Nothing to say about the Milk Run or the cut? Every AK pilot knows what I'm talking about. Why is it you don't seem to?
<quoted text>Actually his opinion doesn't matter, as it was decided in 1967.
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, it simply isn't there- feel free to prove me wrong by citing the Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses marriage.

Now, as I tried to explain to you, the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats, I listed them for you. But like I said, you have a reading comprehension problem.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162222 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
a politician promised something?

not my concern

The French Supreme Court has ruled

you should have seen how the French analogs of the two Roses cried
Winston Smith

Laurel, MD

#162223 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
careful, Winston, we've got a bucking Tranny
how are things in Up Black Eddy? LMAO
I dunno, but it must be bettet than where ever you are.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162224 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, it simply isn't there- feel free to prove me wrong by citing the Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses marriage.
Now, as I tried to explain to you, the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats, I listed them for you. But like I said, you have a reading comprehension problem.
So you're not going to man enough to simply admit that you were wrong. So be it. You've already conceded the point during your backpedal

You continue to throw out qualifiers, caveats, and disclaimers to distance yourself from your original, incorrect statement. It's not working.
Now you are going to demonstrate ignorance of Jr. High Civics and pretend that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution and that they "fabricated" the right to marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says you have the right to have children, so that must not exist, eh? Doesn't mention anything about the right to travel, either. Innocent until proven guilty? Not there. Wow, that Constitution sure left out a lot of stuff. If only there were a means to interpret it and deal with such matters.....Oh wait, there is.

All of these gymnastics to defend keeping your fellow Americans as Second Class Citizens. Proud of yourself?

It is also particularly interesting that you have NOTHING to say about the Milk Run or the Cut. It is simply not possible that an AK Pilot would not know what I'm talking about. What gives? You aren't misrepresenting yourself, are you?
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162225 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
The French Supreme Court has ruled
Not my concern. I care not one whit about French law. Obviously if France were so great, you'd be there, wouldn't you?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162226 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Weird, right? He's even siting the case that proves him wrong. It's just baffling.
Makes you wonder...
And he's so nit-picky about some things.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162227 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're not going to man enough to simply admit that you were wrong. So be it. You've already conceded the point during your backpedal
You continue to throw out qualifiers, caveats, and disclaimers to distance yourself from your original, incorrect statement. It's not working.
Now you are going to demonstrate ignorance of Jr. High Civics and pretend that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution and that they "fabricated" the right to marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says you have the right to have children, so that must not exist, eh? Doesn't mention anything about the right to travel, either. Innocent until proven guilty? Not there. Wow, that Constitution sure left out a lot of stuff. If only there were a means to interpret it and deal with such matters.....Oh wait, there is.
All of these gymnastics to defend keeping your fellow Americans as Second Class Citizens. Proud of yourself?
It is also particularly interesting that you have NOTHING to say about the Milk Run or the Cut. It is simply not possible that an AK Pilot would not know what I'm talking about. What gives? You aren't misrepresenting yourself, are you?
I'm not wrong. That is why you have still been unable to provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses the issue of marriage.

And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google. Not that I have anything to prove to you, my paycheck comes in with or without your approval.

Also if you had any intelligence at all, you would see that I am not located in Alaska anymore, nor have a been for quite a few years. So again, what are you trying to prove?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162228 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
wasn't Vaughn Walker the homosexual who got klonked on his head by a woman with a beehive his last day at work, started yelling at everyone to screw themselves, deployed the escape chute, and raced through the airport to be arrested in bed with another man?
Time to pass the bong...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162230 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to pass the bong...
I agree, you have had enough.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162232 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.
BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.
All rights have restrictions, what's your point?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162233 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you always stop there, why do refuse to include the rest of the statement?
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162235 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
I'm not wrong. That is why you have still been unable to provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses the issue of marriage.
Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage....
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.Skinner v. Oklahoma.......
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions.....
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!......
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution.......
the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats.......
I'm not wrong....
You can't even agree with YOURSELF.

Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google.
An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162236 Oct 5, 2012
*your*

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162238 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162239 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
<quoted text>You can't even agree with YOURSELF.
Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
<quoted text>An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Yawn..

The only one grasping at straws here is you.

I notice you still can't cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares marriage is a right. We are still waiting.

If I were wrong I would admit it, but I am not. I have been very clear in my statements and thus far you have failed to refute any of them with anything other than your emotions and opinions. You debate like a 3rd grader trying to get a candy bar.

So, let's recap. I have been very clear that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. FACT, and unless you can find that Article of the Constitution that deals with marriage, I am correct and thus have nothing to retract.

I have also been very clear in stating that the SCOTUS has declared there is a "right" to marriage, something they fabricated, but there none the less. However, this "right" is very restrictive, and has never extended to anything other than that or one man and one woman, thus meeting the criteria making a marriage a "right"- essential to our existence and survival- set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma.

I'm sorry that your feeble mind is having trouble keeping up with the conversation.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162240 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google. Not that I have anything to prove to you, my paycheck comes in with or without your approval.
Also if you had any intelligence at all, you would see that I am not located in Alaska anymore, nor have a been for quite a few years. So again, what are you trying to prove?
That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Which cheap and legit site to buy fifa 15 coins? Fri alex 3
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Dec 24 yes call me 09864... 376
yahoo nd skype id nhi h Dec 23 sam-7 1
Police chase on Sunday early morning thru EPA Dec 21 D mann 1
Bill Widmer named new Rancho Palos Verdes city ... Dec 20 Are you serious 1
HELP STOP UNJUST PERSECUTIONS of TAXPAYERS over... Dec 19 EQUAL RIGHTS 27
sri ganganagar Dec 18 parmjeet 1

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:39 pm PST

Bleacher Report 5:39PM
Reggie McKenzie's Satisfactory Draft Picks Should Earn His Stay in Oakland
NBC Sports 5:49 PM
Report: Michigan will meet with Jim Harbaugh this weekend
Bleacher Report 2:56 AM
San Francisco 49ers: Who Are the Top Candidates to Replace Jim Harbaugh
Bleacher Report 1:00 PM
Sources: Harbaugh Expected to Go to U-M
CBS Sports 1:56 PM
Report: 49ers expect Jim Harbaugh to accept Michigan offer 'this week'