Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 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: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#171541 Dec 16, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you perform one charitable and honest act of kindness and go to Jerry and tell him about the AIDS ?
wow you projecting.... cause i dont have aids

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#171542 Dec 16, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you perform one charitable and honest act of kindness and go to Jerry and tell him about the AIDS ?
look we know you don't feel safe with all those blood thirsty deer out there... but geez... dont take it out on everyone else
FogHorn

Covina, CA

#171544 Dec 16, 2012
Just more foghorn posters from out of town

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171545 Dec 16, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you were without any moral fiber, and you can be swayed from your core beliefs ? You are no real man, then. I bet if you went to prison, you'd be wearing lipstick, in no time. It doesn't have to cause harm, it is plainly wrong, to mock marriage in this way. It doesn't cause any harm to let a child have a cookie before dinner, but it if it is wrong, then it is not allowed. This is no different, dumbfuck.
If you were really a Wiccan, you wouldn't feel gay marriage mocks marriage. And it doesn't.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#171546 Dec 16, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
don't worry rose , brian g was genetically stupid
I make my arguments without insults; this is where we differ.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171547 Dec 16, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, as numerous posts have explained before, the impeachment of President Clinton failed, as the required 2/3 vote for guilty was not reached in the Senate.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is 1 fu$$ing sentence.

"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2

What part of "SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" is confusing you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171548 Dec 16, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
after obamas speech i can hear all the far right christardo NRA nuts.... "Martha fire up the truck we gotta go get our assault weapons now!!! before the libs take our rights and we can't protect ourselves from roaving bands of blood thirsty deer!!!!"
You have shown that you really don't understand the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.

Hint: It had nothing to do with hunting.
cunune

Pittsburgh, PA

#171555 Dec 17, 2012
youtube.com/watch ... Free-Dumb is getting impaired to aonesided decision

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171556 Dec 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is 1 fu$$ing sentence.
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2
What part of "SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" is confusing you?
"Big D" is also very confused by that simple sentence. He too insists the Senate "failed" the House's impeachment.

Very curious.
LumberYard

Covina, CA

#171557 Dec 17, 2012
How many trees did you cut down for this one Roncco?
Impeachment Cobblers

Mount Airy, MD

#171560 Dec 17, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my arguments without insults; this is where we differ.
You don't really make any arguments, Brian. You simply slap together some bumper sticker slogans and post them here. When asked to give supporting evidence, actual argument, for them you avoid responding.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171561 Dec 17, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my arguments without insults; this is where we differ.
BS. Telling people they don't deserve basic, equal human rights is more insulting than any simple name calling, b!tch.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171562 Dec 17, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not presume to tell me how to think, or what I may feel.
Bigfoot, I'm not doing either. I'm just saying that based on what you say, I figure you are lying about being a Wiccan. It's like your claiming to be a Muslim, then saying in every other post that Muhammad was just another dude.
A fortNight

Covina, CA

#171565 Dec 17, 2012
Another fortnight of bull coming from these out of towners postings again.
Hrdy

Covina, CA

#171569 Dec 17, 2012
Hardy Har Har, mellon brains
Hrdy

Covina, CA

#171571 Dec 17, 2012
For the last two decades the powerful "rich" have passed laws that reduced their tax burden. Because they (Republicans) are a bunch of lazy slobs, and or crooks.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#171573 Dec 17, 2012
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2012/12/121211083212. htm

Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.
Quigley

Covina, CA

#171574 Dec 17, 2012
Still waiting for logic instead of rashed out wacked out republican
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#171576 Dec 18, 2012
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage.

And now SCOTUS will hear the case. How can they come to any other conclusion than Prop8 is discriminatory?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#171577 Dec 18, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage.
And now SCOTUS will hear the case. How can they come to any other conclusion than Prop8 is discriminatory?
I can't wait for reality to happen...
you won't like it...

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
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 45 min Frankie Rizzo 816
News How a small Ind. town became a gay rights battl... 47 min Mitt s Santorum S... 2
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,665
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 2 hr Your Fairy Godmother 1,811
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 2 hr NorCal Native 466
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 2 hr PointBlankPeriod 1,225
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Randy Dandy 24,130
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 8,171
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 6 hr Reverend Alan 846
More from around the web