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
156,241 - 156,260 of 200,336 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago
Day Care

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179163
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.

Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!

Screaming little children, them all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179164
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Day Care wrote:
Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.
Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!
Screaming little children, them all.
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179165
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
In his town they are. It's those out of towners that cause all the trouble.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179166
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.
Who, or what defines "marriage"? It seems you wish to define it as a union of "two people" regardless of gender composition, and base your concept of "equal rights", on that definition.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179167
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.

Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.

According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.

Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.

According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.

It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.

Smile.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179168
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179169
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.
Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.
According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.
Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.
According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.
It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.
Smile.
Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179170
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?
That they are, we get what we ask for.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179171
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?

Really awkward...

Smirk smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179172
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?
Really awkward...
Smirk smile.
No, the current ones. Awkward.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179173
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That they are, we get what we ask for.
We didn't ask for them, they just rigged the game, so as to get where they wanted to be. If elections were fair, they'd be worried about doing good jobs and having to explain their actions. Which they are not concerned with...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179174
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?
Really awkward...
Smirk smile.
Yes, those legislators.. The same.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179175
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the current ones. Awkward.
You don't have to sign "Awkward" to all your posts, we know who you are.
Frankie RIzzo

Orange, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179176
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

10

6

6

I've tongued a few chocolate starfish of choice select males in my youth, but that doesn't make me gay. Just curious. Nothing wrong with experiencing various forms of sexuality.

I'm a better person for doing so.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179177
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no argument against a gay man marrying a gay woman. See we both support gay marriage.
Why do you play that word game?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179178
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who, or what defines "marriage"? It seems you wish to define it as a union of "two people" regardless of gender composition, and base your concept of "equal rights", on that definition.
Either you are playing dumb, or you are not playing.

I will try again to explain this to you.
I'm talking about equal rights WRT marriage.
Still with me?
Let me know, and I will continue.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179179
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.
The whole analogy concept is beyond you! LOLSER.
You are so dumb!
KiMare wrote:
Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.
But, stupid, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
So your whole analogy falls apart.
KiMare wrote:
According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.
You just made that up!
KiMare wrote:
Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.
According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.[/QUOTe]

You stupid monster, marriage is a social/legal contract.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]
Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.
It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.
Smile.

Do you think you should have been aborted?
:)

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179181
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

Do you think you should have been aborted?
:)
I, his vagina, would have been sacrificed but it would have been worth it.
wheels up

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179182
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Oops, looks like another roll over accident here on this topic forum topic.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179183
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.
Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.
According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.
Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.
According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.
It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.
Smile.
Dude.

Get new material. It was ignorant the first time you said it and it remains that way.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••

South Pasadena News Video

•••
•••

South Pasadena Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

South Pasadena News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in South Pasadena
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••