Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169907 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah....I'm familiar with Constitution and the introduction of the Amendments by our Founding Fathers in that they knew there would be aspects dealing with the freedoms of Americans that would come up.
Wow, rant much?

That's interesting considering as a whole, the founding fathers only passed and ratified 10 Amendment's. And not one of them mentions "harm".

Try to stick to the topic. The question was simple- where did the founders mention "Harm" as a reason for the federal government to eliminate an inalienable right?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169908 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
England has succession. When one king or queen dies another monarch is set to take it's place.
They do, however, have a parliment which holds sway over most governmental duties and which is democratic in nature so their royal monarchy is only there for appearances and national pride.
The only succession here might be when a father that founded a company hands over the reigns to his offspring.
As far as "believing" in it, I know it exists.
Pretty stupid question to ask in a thread about gays marrying though given it holds no relevance.
Nice side-step jackass. If you don't want to discuss secession perhaps you shouldn't bring up the civil war.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169909 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
And no genius...succession dealt with the monarchy of the country we severed ties with during our revolution in the late 1700's.
Our Founding Fathers believed in democracy moron.
Our founders HATED democracy you MORON!!! That's why they created a REPUBLIC!!!!

Get a clue.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169910 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Err...
...Here's what you stated in the post of which I was referring to;
"So because they are small in number they do not deserve equal rights?
Interesting, in less than a page you have managed to single-handedly dismantle two of your argument's- the argument of equality in marriage rights, and the -a vote of the majority cannot take away the rights of the majority.
Congratulations moron."
I know what I said you fucking twit, it is you whom is having trouble with your own position. That must be why you are so angry..

"No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant."

Like you say, their numbers are so small who gives a sh$$ about them.

Poor Dan, such a bigot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169911 Dec 4, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
They would much rather drink the Fox News cool aid than admit they are wrong.
Yawn.. Because that Obama Kool Aid is much sweeter..

BTW, it's KOOL not COOL. You should at least learn how to spell your nonsense.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169912 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice side-step jackass. If you don't want to discuss secession perhaps you shouldn't bring up the civil war.
You never mentioned 'secession'.

You advised of 'succession' dumbfuck.

Your post #169895;

"So you do not believe in the right of succession?

---Go to school, you ignorant moron before entering any more posts....really.

Because as it is you're just being stupid.

Our founders did."
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169913 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, rant much?
That's interesting considering as a whole, the founding fathers only passed and ratified 10 Amendment's. And not one of them mentions "harm".
Try to stick to the topic. The question was simple- where did the founders mention "Harm" as a reason for the federal government to eliminate an inalienable right?
There are more than ten Amendments to the Constitution. And freedoms are duly argued in regards to harm they may cause.

You sir are a complete fool.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169914 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what I said you fucking twit, it is you whom is having trouble with your own position. That must be why you are so angry..
"No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant."
Like you say, their numbers are so small who gives a sh$$ about them.
Poor Dan, such a bigot.
I have no reason to be angry.

I'm not gay.

I instead give you facts and you in turn play games.

You're fast approaching the point of being too worthless and stupid to respond to.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169915 Dec 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Our founders HATED democracy you MORON!!! That's why they created a REPUBLIC!!!!
Get a clue.
Based on the principles set forth by democratic means.

I don't think you're up to arguing the Constitution given you cannot even identify the elements of a bsaic civil right let alone know how many Amendments there are or how they were formed.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169916 Dec 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice side-step jackass. If you don't want to discuss secession perhaps you shouldn't bring up the civil war.
By the way genius....I never brought up the Civil War.

This thread is about gays marrying MORON....LOL!!!!

You are the DUMBEST Mo-Fo yet!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169917 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
You never mentioned 'secession'.
You advised of 'succession' dumbfuck.
Your post #169895;
"So you do not believe in the right of succession?
---Go to school, you ignorant moron before entering any more posts....really.
Because as it is you're just being stupid.
Our founders did."
If you would like me to point out all of your typo's I would be more than happy to Dan- but since your posts are so consistently full of sh$$ I figured I would focus on that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169918 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
There are more than ten Amendments to the Constitution. And freedoms are duly argued in regards to harm they may cause.
You sir are a complete fool.
You are the fool. The first 10 Amendment are the ONLY Amendments that the "founders" drafted and Ratified as a collective.

I am sorry that you have a reading comprehension problem.

And again, where did the founders mention "harm" when they mentioned inalienable right's?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169919 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no reason to be angry.
I'm not gay.
I will let people stew on that statement for a bit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169920 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
You're fast approaching the point of being too worthless and stupid to respond to.
You reached that point years ago, yet here we are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169921 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the principles set forth by democratic means.
I don't think you're up to arguing the Constitution given you cannot even identify the elements of a bsaic civil right let alone know how many Amendments there are or how they were formed.
So yo are still claiming what the founders gave us was a "Democracy"?

And you are the one saying I am clueless..

You are in dire need of a history lesson my friend.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169922 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way genius....I never brought up the Civil War.
This thread is about gays marrying MORON....LOL!!!!
You are the DUMBEST Mo-Fo yet!
Poor Dan.

Doesn't realize that when he rants on about- Lincoln, Slavery, the southern states, and the 13th Amendment- that he is discussing the Civil War.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169923 Dec 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the fool. The first 10 Amendment are the ONLY Amendments that the "founders" drafted and Ratified as a collective.
I am sorry that you have a reading comprehension problem.
And again, where did the founders mention "harm" when they mentioned inalienable right's?
The point behind the Amendments dealt with the fact they were set in motion my foolish friend.

There were never intended to stop at ten and our country was intended to live past the deaths of our Founding Fathers by them.

Rights are determined in part by harm. If they are proven to cause harm then they in turn are rejected.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169924 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the principles set forth by democratic means.
I don't think you're up to arguing the Constitution given you cannot even identify the elements of a bsaic civil right let alone know how many Amendments there are or how they were formed.
Your right Dan- I cannot identify the elements of a BSAIC civil right.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169925 Dec 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So yo are still claiming what the founders gave us was a "Democracy"?
And you are the one saying I am clueless..
You are in dire need of a history lesson my friend.
Really.

There are many rebublic formats of government of which some are not wholly based on the democratic format.

Please...you tire me with your stupidity.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169926 Dec 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Dan.
Doesn't realize that when he rants on about- Lincoln, Slavery, the southern states, and the 13th Amendment- that he is discussing the Civil War.
Weak.

They also had horse carriages back then. Are we to claim I brought them up as well???

Your game playing really makes me think you haven't been able to hold a job longer than 3 months in your life. No shit.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 3 min Belle Sexton 133
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min GodSmacked 20,695
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 8 min Pietro Armando 59,616
News 8 Shocking Statements Opponents Of Marriage Equ... 11 min Dan 93
News Kenyan government: We will not allow homosexual... 32 min Otter in the Ozarks 18
News What It Was Like at the First Gay Rights Demons... 35 min Stand Down 94
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 44 min lides 539
Are the mods fair and balanced? 7 hr DebraE 830
More from around the web