Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,161

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.

Full Story
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203274 Jul 17, 2013
Spool wrote:
It's more like screech!
Your just a spool.
Sorry, jack-ass, but sheesh is speaking more sensibly than you. Deal with it.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203275 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Like your troll posts?
at its most basic essence marriage is a legal contract recognized by local government
A troll is someone that attacks the messenger letting you know that Same sex marriage is legal, recognized on both the state and federal level.
Sterility is moot as the ability or intent to have children has never ever been a requirement for a marriage
No. At its most basic essence, it's a union of 1 man, 1 woman. At it's most LEGAL essence, it's a contract. Semantic manipulation. Shameful.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203276 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen troll
You don’t get to define my marriage, or anyone else’s. Your opinion is totally worthless
A marriage is a legal contract, recognized by our government and laws.
Same sex couples are legally married and recognized on the state and federal level.
You don’t get to define their mirages either, you are not that important.
You can define your own, but that is where it stops
Hey! D got something right! SSM is a mirage.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203277 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't played dumb at all. That would be you dear. You're the one presenting non-existent statistics and "facts", not me. Don't get all bent out of shape because I'm able to call you on your intentional deceitfulness.
<quoted text>
No honeypie, only the fundamentalists (who are a very small faction of society) agree with you, and no one really gives a rat's ass what those people think about anything. They are hypocritical liars like yourself.
<quoted text>
No hon, it isn't. That's why no child health experts agree with your completely unfounded and unsupported statement. I'm quite sure that those experts would just think your an angry c*nt like I do.
Smile!
<quoted text>
No dear, actually the "woman" recognized what wonderful parents we would be and went out of her way to volunteer her time before we ever thought of asking. And my husband and I DO have a child, two actually. Not a damn thing you can do about it but continue to be a raving bitch and stomping your feet and pouting.
Smile c*nt!
<quoted text>
Would you like some cheese to go with your whine hon?
<quoted text>
I'm sure you are. But I have no problem looking them in the eye. I also have no problem using posts like yours to demonstrate to them the utter ugliness, hypocrisy and pure lunacy of fundamentalist Christians.
Thank you for being such an ugly c*nt.
Interesting. You claim that you and your..."man" had babies, without heterosexual involvement, and get called on it. After squirming, you make all sorts of noise, and then end up claiming that a woman was involved. Making it a heterosexual coupling. Which was the basis of your original lie. Your intentional deceitfulness. Not his. You get to call NOTHING, you lying sack of shyte.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#203278 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The authors of this study are looking at the evolutionary process of determining a mate for the purposes of reproduction.
This is not a study that looks at “marriage”, which is a legal union that ties people together.
Just because the first paragraph mentions “marriage”, it is not a discussion about marriage. In fact, the authors specifically use the words “mating relationships”; which, as we know, not all marriages are “mating relationships”.
Now you may say I’m splitting hairs, but in the opening paragraph, did you happen to notice how the authors define marriages as being “usually” regarded as formal reproductive alliances? Another way of saying this would be “While some marriages are ‘usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances’, NOT ALL marriages are defined in this manner.”
I think this is an important distinction; one that cannot be overlooked.
Next, this article is focused exclusively on heterosexual RELATIONSHPS (not marriage) that are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of reproducing.
It doesn’t touch on those relationships in which couples make the conscious and mutually agreed upon decision that they will not reproduce.
As I’ve pointed out to you time and again, the numbers of married couples who are choosing NOT to have children has been increasing over the past few decades. This article doesn’t not address it and therefore does not ask or answer the question “why?”
Another problem with this article is that it does not examine homosexual relationships (long-term or short-term) at all.
Obviously same-sex relationships exist. They’ve always existed.
But since this is an article about the evolutionary processes involved with regards to opposite-gender couples in determining who to mate with; and NOT an article about marriage; the authors don’t spend time talking about gays.
Their... y is not discussed by the authors, their exclusion of the subject CANNOT be viewed as an endorsement that marriage MUST BE reserved for opposite-gender relationships only.
Lastly, I did a search on David M. Buss, just to see what he has to say about homosexuality. One of his “theories” is that some men “choose” homosexuality because they are unattractive to women.
We know that homosexuality is not a choice. That’s stupid. Even the most homely straight man could not—would not—“choose” to become gay.
And all that David Schmitt has to say about gay men is that they, like heterosexual men, enjoy having more sexual partners than gay and straight women.
Here’s the bottom line, you total rube; the article you cite is not about marriage. It’s about mating and how it MAY have evolved over the millennia. Since it does not examine heterosexual relationships in which couples consciously decide to forgo having children and since there is no discussion at all about homosexual relationships, you CANNOT conclude that this article in ANY WAY supports the belief that marriage should be confined to opposite-gender couples.
Perhaps you should read beyond the first paragraph of an article before you decide to throw it around as proof-positive for your notions.
Here is the bottom line.

In the first paragraph, they verified my concise statement; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

As to the rest of the content, I knew exactly where it went. As I noted with my first reference, I have chosen brief summaries that prove my statement.

You should take note of the practice of 'briefness'...

Again, you can find that statement in other articles regarding marriage and mating behavior.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203279 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they both weren't. I easily demonstrated that.
<quoted text>
No pretending was necessary. I was gay through the entire process of having children.
And I stopped pretending to be hetero around the age of 16 when I realized that ugly people like you have big mouths, but don't at all represent the normal people of society. You're a coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Smile.
No, you demonstrated nothing, except poor lies. You're the coward and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203280 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>\
Everyone of these bumper sticker, fundie, illiterately crafted talking points has been debunked numerous times.
You have no argument. You're a desperate fool and an ugly c*nt.
While we know that your little house of worship operates on the philosophy that repetition creates truth, here in the real world that isn't the case.
Smile.
More lies from a liar. You're the coward, and a c*nt and completely insignificant.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203281 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not marriages, and why? Because they are not recognized on the state or federal level, thank you for making my point.
Not yet. But, they will be. 15 years ago, we said the same about SSSB. Which wasn't moral or proper until the government said it was.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203282 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not marriages, and why? Because they are not recognized on the state or federal level, thank you for making my point.
We'll just forget the Constitution, which places more validity upon Poly than it does SSSB...
sheesh

United States

#203285 Jul 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Here is a map that might help you. It was not an adjacent neighborhood: http://globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martin-sh...
Georgie made a mistake, he decided he didn't belong because of his skin tone. they both are stupid. And it seems you are too. let it rest. take your Zimmerman poster down, he's no hero.
Thank You! Gestapo doesn't like facts that don't jive with his paranoid and pathetic view of the world. He and Zimmerman appear to be equally challenged with respect to intellect. Zimmerman claims that he got out of his truck to look at a street sign to give a location to dispatch. In his own friggin' neighborhood. If you have a look at google maps you can see that that "big Ol' neighborhood consisted of three streets. Retreat View Circle, that one runs around the perimeter of the neighborhood. There is Twin Trees which appears to run through the neighborhood crossing Retreat View Circle twice. And finally Long Oak Way which connects Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees. The more I look at stuff the more the Zimmerman trial looks like the O J Simpson courtroom circus.
sheesh

United States

#203286 Jul 17, 2013
Hypocrisy Watch wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called sarcasm, shitferbrains. We all know that you human coffee tables are going to be hypocrites and give de Blacke Mon a pass because he too is listed on The Government protected species list.
Everybody knows he was a homophobe. Chantel or Latisha (or whatever her name is) told the world.
Imbecile.
Yeah, I was once guilty of thinking little of homosexuals when I was his age, you know, a kid. Then I grew up because no one put a bullet through my heart.

Speaking of feces filled skulls, kindly point out where I was willing to give Trayvon a pass. I merely pointed out a few things to some hard of thinking mental midget. Namely our "hero" Zimmerman was more of a thug than Martin was. Zimmerman's past included violent acts.

Martin's past included possession of an empty pot bag, a pipe, some jewelry (not proven to be stolen) and a burglary tool (commonly known as a screwdriver). It does all seem rather incriminating doesn't it, the screwdriver and women's jewelry as well as his claim he was holding it for someone. No history of violence on his record has come to light. Oh, and some graffiti.

Zimmerman, OTOH, liked to slap his woman around and was occasioned to throwing a few at cops. As I mentioned before, I don't want either of 'em hanging around in my neighborhood. Oh wait, I don't have to worry about that, Zimmerman took him out while disobeying police order. Apparently he needed to get out and check a street name in his own neighborhood. One that only had three streets in it.
laughing man

UK

#203287 Jul 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I was once guilty of thinking little of homosexuals when I was his age, you know, a kid. Then I grew up because no one put a bullet through my heart.
Speaking of feces filled skulls, kindly point out where I was willing to give Trayvon a pass. I merely pointed out a few things to some hard of thinking mental midget. Namely our "hero" Zimmerman was more of a thug than Martin was. Zimmerman's past included violent acts.
Martin's past included possession of an empty pot bag, a pipe, some jewelry (not proven to be stolen) and a burglary tool (commonly known as a screwdriver). It does all seem rather incriminating doesn't it, the screwdriver and women's jewelry as well as his claim he was holding it for someone. No history of violence on his record has come to light. Oh, and some graffiti.
Zimmerman, OTOH, liked to slap his woman around and was occasioned to throwing a few at cops. As I mentioned before, I don't want either of 'em hanging around in my neighborhood. Oh wait, I don't have to worry about that, Zimmerman took him out while disobeying police order. Apparently he needed to get out and check a street name in his own neighborhood. One that only had three streets in it.
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.

I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.

Thank me.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203288 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to have believe in whichever book you want to in this country
but there are people legally married that don’t believe in your little religion too.
and people of different religions that believe in many different gods and many different religious laws.
and people of no religion at all
Your little book has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage and how it is defined under US Law
How come you failed to include a snide little diatribe involving religion and volcanoes? No mention made of flying bowls of spaghetti? Ooga Booga?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203289 Jul 17, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you could quote a legitimate social scientist who defines marriage as you do...
You can't. They do not exist. Your definition is contrived; a lie.
Please stop blatantly lying if you wish to be taken seriously.
Even if we felt like doing your job for you, you wouldn't acknowledge his/her validity, anyway... You'd scoff, mock, belittle, insult and disparage. Tell us that we think that we're "gods" before you were through...
sheesh

United States

#203290 Jul 17, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.
I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.
Thank me.
I show from Kentucky because that is where the IP addy appears to have me. But I'm not there at all, giggling eejit. Nope, I'm not new here either, guess again. You've slapped no one around either dimwit. You only mock because you're pathetic.
Stats

Monrovia, CA

#203291 Jul 17, 2013
Stone cold fever of over there.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#203292 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The "basic essence of marriage" is a human legal matter, not a natural matter.
The point is marriage is a union of the sexes, that's the essence.
There are no legal "marriages” in the animal kingdom outside of human governmental law.
You are free to call your grotesque marriage whatever you want to, but you will not be defining mine or anyone else’s.
Yet u advocate for SSM which does exactly that, at least legally.
There is no requirement of intent or ability for procreation for a marriage license, we marry couples all the time and have for hundreds of years that cannot have children.
Of course not, marriage is a union of the sexes, and surprise, sex makes babies, human societies throughout history have figured this out, hence the recognized male female relationship.
Your belittling those people is not helping your case in any way at all, you are only driving more people to our side of equality and freedom.
Thank you Big D Orwell.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203293 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She deliriously labors under the mistaken believe that her opinions mean something to me, you or to other gay people! I think in her head her repeatedly not using the word spouse or marriage in context with gays will just make the millions of gays everywhere go, "damn it, some of the fundies won't use the word marriage when they talk about our marriages. I guess we should just stop trying to get their approval and go back to not marrying."!!!!!!! Their imaginary self importance is hysterical!!
It's also so fun to watching her responses become more and more ugly. Speaks volumes!
We already pointed out that you gays don't give a damn about anything, except for yourselves. You don't care about religion, children, decency, marriage equality, etc. all you're interested in is: YOURSELVES! You see nothing wrong a publicly broadcast discussion about semen cocktails. You parade dildoes around, as if there is nothing wrong with that. you drag in Matt Shepard, and dispute Jesse Dirkising. You laugh that we are possessed with "imaginary self importance", while claiming that yours is the only opinion that counts. You mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, while calling us "bigots" and "haters", all the while calling us "asshats' and "traitors" and such. WTF is this claptrap that you are posting? All about what is wrong with our side and how there is nothing that yours can do wrong. You call others "ugly" while spouting off with some of the ugliest shyte a person can say. I make a proper post about the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and get panned and negative judgits for my trouble. So, I that your opinions are those of spoiled little children seeking their little bit of satisfaction, at the expense of morality. And, if you don't want to accept facts, then piss off. You've done more to solidify my position against SSSB than anything else could have. Just by being your demented, bent, immoral selves.
sheesh

United States

#203294 Jul 17, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new here, Bubba. Well, you show from Kentucky, just as bad.
I don't have dialogs with shit cultists or their Enablers. I'm only here to mock them and slap them around.
Thank me.
BTW chuckles, are you pleased that the UK will be having gay marriages performed next year? All legal. Cheers!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203295 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooh, all seeing fundie eye!!!
Believe me, the deprivation was very short lived. About a minute or two really. Once they realized the pay off was being endowed with two awesome fathers. Something that fundies like yourself deny your children. Why do you hate your children so?
<quoted text>
Where exactly did Veryvermilion damn children? Whose children? Please provide the post number.
Thanks so much Kuntmare. Smile.
Right here! You stupid f**k! Right here!

"#202675
Monday Jul 15
"Who gives a goddamn when it comes to kids in regards to marriage?
As has been established throughout this entire conversation, married people are not required to have children. People who are unable to or who have no desire to have kids can and do marry.
If you're going to define marriage based on a couple's ability or desire to have children, then you need to halt all marriages between couples who will not have them.
Otherwise, STFU about kids and sterility, etc...
If you're going to argue this issue, you need to come up with a REAL reason for gays not to marry, vag man."
Right here! Post number, date, and cut-n-pasted, for you to pretend that you didn't know about! Complete with customary homo-insult to end it with.
Smiling now?

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
Petition against unreasonable fingerprinting 3 hr BiometricAwareness 1
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 23 hr Does it All 29
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) Thu maryjaneprincton 19
US stocks start lower Dec 16 Anthony V 104
annoying helicopter flying near fremont st and ... (Sep '08) Dec 15 Zombie Corpse Rental 14
pune india Dec 13 sudhir1984 2
For Google's self-driving cars, learning to dea... Dec 12 Truth 6

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:45 am PST

ESPN11:45AM
Source: Bills' Spiller expected to play Sunday
NBC Sports12:37 PM
Report: Harbaugh's family, friends encouraging him to take UM job
Bleacher Report 1:34 PM
Hyde and Borland (Ankles) Ruled out vs. Bolts
NBC Sports 2:17 PM
Raiders haven't needed much from Janikowski - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 5:36 PM
49ers call up NT Mike Purcell from practice squad