Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198988 Jun 29, 2013
Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear a Union City queer making noises... sounds like he's getting a hummer from a Wooster, Ohio, phagg named Rock Hudson.
Hi DD, how do you feel about SSM being a gay hater that you are?
Dee Dee

Los Angeles, CA

#198989 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. I had to take it very easy today.
Last night I was laying on the bed while my partner was fisting me. Even though he was up to his elbow, I wasn't getting my fill. I ordered him to stick something larger in me. He reached down without looking and picked up the cactus I have growing by the bed and he had it halfway in me before he realized what it was. By then I shot off the bed like I was launched at Cape Canaveral.
So today was Stand Up Day, All Day.
OUCH! That was probably a couple more pricks than you're used to having up there at a time. ;)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198992 Jun 29, 2013
Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>OUCH! That was probably a couple more pricks than you're used to having up there at a time. ;)
Funny!
Syrup

Covina, CA

#198993 Jun 29, 2013
Did you add syrup to the stack?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198994 Jun 29, 2013
Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear a Union City queer making noises... sounds like he's getting a hummer from a Wooster, Ohio, phagg named Rock Hudson.
No it's your wife.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198995 Jun 29, 2013

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198996 Jun 29, 2013
Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear a Union City queer making noises... sounds like he's getting a hummer from a Wooster, Ohio, phagg named Rock Hudson.
No, it means your milkshake is done, waiting in the toilet.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Syrup

Covina, CA

#198997 Jun 29, 2013
Did you add syrup to the stack?

NO BUT lots of butter was added.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199005 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not.
But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions!
Kind of scary VV...
1.) Still waiting for your source where you can prove that 98% of couples have intercourse for procreation. Last time you said the figure was 96%.

2.) If every heterosexual couple who is currently married ONLY had sex for procreative purposes, then the population of the planet wouldn't be 7 billion, it would be 70 billion.

3.) Procreation isn't confusing for homosexuals. We've all been taught the birds and the bees. It's hardly rocket science. I always adore it when you act as though procreation was a magical, mysterious process that only straight people can fathom.

4.) More ass fascination... I'm hardly surprised.

5.) According to a 2006 survey completed by the Centers for Disease Controlís National Survey of Family Growth showed that "38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex." BOTTOM line, you ASSume that only gays engage in ANAL sex. Obviously, straight people do too. My guess is that you've looked at you wife's ASS a few times over the years and thought about taking a ride. Those who live in glASS houses should throw stones.(I capitalized those words that I thought might give you the most enjoyment).

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199006 Jun 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True......but as the saying goes, "two go to bed, but three get up".
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhhh....huh. What is the natural result of colitis? Conception. Does it occur in envy single instance? Of course not, that doesn't mean human reproduction isn't sexual. High School biology 101/Sex Ed.
See how simple that was?
Yeah... You seem to be getting the point. Not ever instance of sexual intercourse results in babies. Gay people do it all the time.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199010 Jun 29, 2013
Veryvermillion: Nobody is questioning the CDC survey, the point was that it's not a natural act, doesn't matter who is involved, straight or Not straight. Do you believe it's natural?

Riccardo

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199014 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, aren't you being a little tesy and judging? Tsk, tsk...
The Constitution never BANNED any gays from marrying. There is no mention of gays, in any way at all. The actual acheivement that you are really cheering is the forced intrusion of your ilk into the midst of the accepted. The intrusion to which you refer is mis-represented, by your side, in a neat little bit of semantic manipulation. The gripe that you have is that you were never included. Not Banned. The Founders never imagined that we'd be using the Constitution to validate SSM.
Do you think the founders ever believed that the Constitution would be used for freeing slaves or integration?

Do you think the founders had any concept of computers, subatomic particles, digital downloads, or any other technology that couldn't have been foreseen at the time of the signing?

Do you think the founders had any notion that the Constitution would be used to create "corporate personhood"?

The Constitution was a starting point. The Supreme Court uses it to look at all manner of situations that the founders could never have fathomed. They make decisions based on how it has been applied in the past.

So it doesn't matter if the founders ever conceived of the Constitution being used to legalize same-sex marriage.

As to the rest of what you said... Meh... Get over it. You guys lost the case. Maybe next time...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199015 Jun 29, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
Veryvermillion: Nobody is questioning the CDC survey, the point was that it's not a natural act, doesn't matter who is involved, straight or Not straight. Do you believe it's natural?
Riccardo
Of course it's natural. Humans would have been doing it for eons if it weren't natural. You do realize that anal sex was the primary method of contraception before condoms came along don't you? Not to mention, many people believe it feels good. What is it they say, "Millions of people can't be wrong".

I would go into detail about the "male G-spot", but I think I'll let you Google it and learn about it on your own.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199016 Jun 29, 2013
Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>OUCH! That was probably a couple more pricks than you're used to having up there at a time. ;)
HAH!!

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#199017 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
A little early to be hitting the bottle, don't you think? I mean, that's the ONLY explanation for your comment.
It's just more of your denial/delusions nonsense.
If you hadn't made such an ass of yourself over the years, I'd feel a little sympathy for you. But as it is, you're just a pathetic mess who can't deal the reality of the world you live in.
I couldn't agree more.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199021 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope to see impeached, as Clinton was...
Uh-oh, Big D is going to get very upset. He insists that Clinton's impeachment "failed".
Plowed Under

Covina, CA

#199025 Jun 29, 2013
422 W. Route 66, Glendora, California 91740

20 single-family homes, 108 townhomes, and 2,000 square feet of retail space (in process)
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199027 Jun 29, 2013
very diseased wrote:
<quoted text>
I would go into detail about the "male G-spot", but I think I'll let you Google it and learn about it on your own.
7th grade know-it-all, who literally brags about its love affair with what sane people avoid stepping in.
Plowed Under

Covina, CA

#199028 Jun 29, 2013
Californian's have reduced trash to record low in 2012

Californian's reduced the amount of trash sent to landfills to a record low last year, according to new figures from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#199030 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders ever believed that the Constitution would be used for freeing slaves or integration?
Umm, yeah. That's why they didn't let the south flood the House by counting slaves as "whole" people.

Anyone who has actually taken the time to study our history knows that. They also know that many of the founders were ready and willing to take on the issue of slavery at the drafting, but they felt it would result and losing everything, thus they wrote the 3/5th clause knowing by attrition the practice of slavery would bring about its own demise.

But I guess people like you whom get their historical education from comedy central don't understand that.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders had any concept of computers, subatomic particles, digital downloads, or any other technology that couldn't have been foreseen at the time of the signing?
What does this have to do with the price of rice in china?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders had any notion that the Constitution would be used to create "corporate personhood"?
Since Corporations are nothing more that a conglomeration of citizens, I don't think they would have much trouble with the concept.

Anyhow, what difference does it really make? Most corporations hedge their bets when making campaign donations anyhow, so each party comes out about even.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was a starting point. The Supreme Court uses it to look at all manner of situations that the founders could never have fathomed.
No you idiot. The Constitution was the end-point. It is what it is, and only changes through the Amendment process, not at the whims of the SCOTUS.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
They make decisions based on how it has been applied in the past.
So it doesn't matter if the founders ever conceived of the Constitution being used to legalize same-sex marriage.
The Constitution doesn't address the issue you marriage. The founders weren't interested in an all powerful, know and control everything federal government.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As to the rest of what you said... Meh... Get over it. You guys lost the case. Maybe next time...
Actually we all lost. The court has announced to the American citizen that they "lack standing" to address the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

But you are so near sighted, you can't see beyond- YAY, I can marry a dude..

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
what silicon valley should do 8 hr ERA-17 1
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Fri Opinion 298
News Tesla's real capacity problem? Too many employees Fri MsAngelo 2
Bing is a Terrible Search Engine Fri MsAngelo 5
Comcast is Worse Than You Think Fri MsAngelo 10
Cupertino - Police Helicopter Fly Over Announce... (Dec '12) Fri Suus 12
News From Daylight Savings Time to single-payer heal... Jun 19 Cain 1

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages