Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201889 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.

Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#170867 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"To the contrary, we have many competent members (but not all of them are competent), you can not to do my job without the proper training (as in any industry), you need to know what the hell you are doing to get the job done right (as with any job) and the employer knows it, that is why they agree to our demands (seems to mean that you suggest the union demands are met, because the union demands proper training, even though training occurs in all jobs, union and non-union alike). You are just a loser (can't see how) and can't stand it. You are willing to do without in order to survive (no, I'm not, I do very well).
It's people like you with no back bone to fight for a better living while your employer reeps the benefits (people like me ? Hah! I do very well, without your gang doing anything for me). You can call it extortion or anything else you want, the employers are the same way if not worse. You will never figure it out you scab.(I have figured it out, I don't need the union to make my own way, very nicely, too.)
"Live Better Work UNION" (is a catch phrase for cowards with no backbone or bargaining ability.)
Go talk to your boss like a man, if you can, I talk to mine every day, and I tell him what's on my mind, whenever I want to. Even told him the other day that I like the hell out of him, but that, 1/2 the time, I want to smack the shyte out of him. Did I get fired ? No. Did I get beaten up ? No. We talk, as real men do. If I want something, I go to his office, and request 5 minutes of his time. He always makes the time for me. You should try working away from the shadow of fear.
Seems to me that the union is not necessary for proper training to occur. Why should I go FK myself ? The union has all the FK'ing going on. they are raping idiots, like you...
Whilst I am sure that this "spinless" was supposed to be "spineless", it wasn't spelled properly. Nonetheless.....You are the spinless[sic] one, as you have no balls to use, apart from the ones that your union gives you. Dumb ? Why don't you ask the union to send you back to school, so that you may learn to spell properly?
Nah, I shan't go FK myself. But I MAY go wipe my a$$ with my union membership card, after I am done using it, when it expires. I will continue to reep[sic] the benefits from it, until it is out-of-date. Go and call the Hoffa Hotline and report me for that.
Hey man...

...I wouldn't fight with 'Bruno'.

He's just another one of your fellow brothers who has an IQ below that of a Guatemalan tree squirrel and you may need his support one day.

Just an FYI.

LOL!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#170868 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if I were fat, I could lose weight. And my pic shows I'm not fat at all.
You are a monster mutation, self described. Nothing you can do about that.
Do you think you should have been aborted?
LOL! Bet your mom wishes she had finished the job, instead of just wasting a perfectly good hanger.
You have been kind of pissy on here lately... Yeast infection? Still in menopause? Blonde roots showing?

:-)

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170872 Dec 11, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been kind of pissy on here lately... Yeast infection? Still in menopause? Blonde roots showing?
:-)
I know right? I was thinking maybe the old bag had a stroke. Or maybe needs her medication adjusted. But she's been listless and dopey for quite a while.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#170873 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I sure was. Ooops
:D
I meant to attack this one: "<quoted text>
Thanks.

Thanks for showing us the puke stain on your shirt.

LOL!!!
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#170874 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
I'll say it myself.

It is equivalent.

The only difference would equate to the fact one's preference in a partner happens to be of the same sex.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170876 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey man...
...I wouldn't fight with 'Bruno'.
He's just another one of your fellow brothers who has an IQ below that of a Guatemalan tree squirrel and you may need his support one day.
Just an FYI.
LOL!!
So your posts which are all like this, just stupid ad hominen, are on topic and valid but mine are trolling?

Just a FYI.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170877 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll say it myself.
It is equivalent.
The only difference would equate to the fact one's preference in a partner happens to be of the same sex.
Don't try to write fancy Dan, it comes out stupid.

"...difference would equate to the fact..." Too funny!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170878 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
Thanks for showing us the puke stain on your shirt.
LOL!!!
Lovely. Another typical Dan post.

But I or anyone with a different opinion from Dan is a troll. And should "get lost punk".

Nice!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170879 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
Thanks for showing us the puke stain on your shirt.
LOL!!!
Six biased idiots (so far) have rated this post "Brilliant"!

Priceless!

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#170880 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You're straight and you call another man "sugar nipples"? Not in person you don't. What's wrong with you dude? Whoa cowboy!
Please come in my bar and call another man "sugar nipples"! Please! Naah, Bad advice never mind jackass! Would like to see it though!
You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#170881 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovely. Another typical Dan post.
But I or anyone with a different opinion from Dan is a troll. And should "get lost punk".
Nice!
Kinda like you THINK that everyone BUT you is a jackass..........what a flucking putz.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#170884 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
Why yes butter cup I do. Got a problem with gay's and lesbians being your equal????? What a putz

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170888 Dec 11, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like you THINK that everyone BUT you is a jackass..........what a flucking putz.
Brilliant post jackass.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170889 Dec 11, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples
No.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170892 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ostrich maneuver ...
Get a load a that dopey "jazzybird" creep, wears a tin foil hat and calls other men "sugar nipples", claims he's straight.

Too Funny!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#170893 Dec 11, 2012
USA Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess that whole by the people for the people is a sham.
The people include members of minorities.
Get over it.

And the Electoral College has been around since the US has. And they can ignore the people's vote, and vote for who they want to.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#170894 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170895 Dec 11, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples
Just for you creep-

http://www.rleeermey.com/sounds/dirtbag.wav

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#170897 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there won't.
...To continue...
Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.
Then why do childless couples get the benefits?
R Hudson wrote:
But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults. And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
That's because you are just a homophobe trying to make his bigotry seem noble.
R Hudson wrote:
Same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society, which is why we oppose it.
BS. You're just a homophobe. You haven't shown a single way gay marriage would harm society.
R Hudson wrote:
Let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do. Even Chongo.. But, the issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history. Why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is? It is because a union between a man and a woman has been humanly and historically universal. It is to bestow a singular place in society for a natural family. Conceiving, raising, and maintaining a family. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? In each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
R Hudson wrote:
Spare me your nonsense about morons, you shout that because that is an inconvenient truth that you cannot dodge. No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage. What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution. Since we cannot possibly understand the scope and ramifications of this issue, might I suggest that same sex couples wishing for marriage move to some of the states that HAVE legalized it, and see how it works out, instead of attempting to force the issue into national legislation ?
Why? If the issue were raising children, they could do that without getting married. Just tell us how the children would benefit from the couple not being able to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
The results could be disastrous for this nation, and this nation is in dire straits, already...
Rose's Law...
You go on about children because you don't have an argument against gay marriage. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and they do. They do a fine job. And they can marry and not raise children. Gay marriage and gay couples raising children are separate issues.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#170902 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
He's no brother to me. Why would I need support from a half-man that needs a union to speak for him ? FYI, I understood your sarcasm here, but do not feel that any return of fire is necessary...
Because you're a half man yourself.

Unfortunately even with you two combined you'd not make so much as one individual with major character flaws given you're both lost causes.

LOL!!!

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.

South Pasadena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump 33 min Vote Right 2
News San Pedro drive-by shooting appears to be gang-... (May '09) 38 min Vote Right 208
Review: Financial Plus Investment (Jul '08) 2 hr Robert 3,183
Funnyman Patton Oswalt Murdered Wife? 10 hr Peter 8
News Unfounded fears of shooting at LAX create panic... 10 hr typical LA softies 1
Possible coyote in South Pasadena (Jun '08) May '16 ggg 32
News Auditors question South El Montea s relationshi... (Sep '15) Sep '15 concern citizen 1

South Pasadena Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

South Pasadena Mortgages