Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,197

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

#203219 Jul 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>"creepy"? I didn't bring it up in the first place and was curious about how that can happen. Did I say it makes a difference to the state and the state's recognition? I was simply asking, sorry if asking something gets you so bent. I never questioned or meant to write that it was in doubt not your DNA, I was curious how 2 gays guys DNA could be linked on a child. Sorry if I don't keep up on how to make a baby without the normal methods. Let's hear your next outburst...NEXT! hey dude, cut back on the coffee. You sound wired.
That was the easy part. They blew wads on the poor tykes back, and rubbed it in ...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203220 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually what you stated was this:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
From there I demonstrated how ridiculously mentally defective you are.
You didn't know that?
By pointing out how 2 men or 2 women can conceive? That was especially clever of you....
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203221 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, creepy. I brought up being a biological father. From there you wanted to know medical information pertaining to my children and my husband. Yes, that's creepy.
<quoted text>
I brought it up to demonstrate how stupid KiMare is. You see, unlike most of you morons, I like to use specifics in order to support my statements.
If you are curious how sperm and eggs lead to fertilization, you might enroll in a night class on biology, or try a library.
<quoted text>
Who said 2 gays[sic] guys DNA was linked on the child? No one.
<quoted text>
You don't keep up on much of anything. That's evident from your posts.
Translated: "I made a nonsensical claim and was asked to provide an explanation. This I cannot do, as I was talking out of my ass."
sheesh

Columbiana, AL

#203222 Jul 17, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
George Z. was only protecting his residence, that is why he followed Trayvon. This was a private, gated community and Trayvons parents did NOT reside there family and friends made it up. Fact is Trayvon became violent when asked a simple question. Instead of answering in a civil manner he bacame very agitated instead of just answering the question, Trayvon was so agiteated that he got into Georges face and hit him with a left hook, the rest is self defense on Georges part, too bad for Trayvon, this is one caper he failed at it was just a matter of time. This is just the way young black boys handle their business and this is why there is so much violence around. Their motto is: put the blame some where esle. Bottom line is that the jury tried extreamly hare to find something George did wrong, and after 16 hrs of deliberation they couldn't end of story. Oh it is hilarious that Trayvons parents and friends were positive that Trayvon did no wrong as if they were there the entire time , just like yourself you were there right? you sound like you have been in trouble with the cops before you idiot. Go FK yourself.
Yet another mangled assault on language by an ignorant buffoon.

OH, my mistake, it wasn't his father's home. It was his father's fiance's rented home. He had every right to be in that gated community as he was there as a guest.

Martin was never anywhere near Zimmerman's home, so Zimmerman wasn't protecting his home.

Martin, petty thief, casual pot smoker. Dead.
Zimmerman, woman beater, drunkard cop assaulting, judge's spoiled undisciplined son turned killer. Free as a bird. I suspect this won't be his last brush with the law. He's been getting away with stuff for too long. He'll be back. Mark my words. You can go cheer for him too. Maybe even waste some of your hard earned money on his defense fund like some other tools. Oh, BTW, he did tick off the judge when he wasn't honest about this at the bail hearing.

I can see where that would make someone like you jump for joy.

I'm glad you stooped to the lowest common denominator. Nope, not been in trouble with the law unless you consider an occasional speeding ticket to be a sign of a hardened criminal. In fact I have testified regularly on behalf of the state in animal cruelty cases. You, OTOH, are an illiterate buffoon.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203223 Jul 17, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
Good statements as to why our society is going to hell (darn, for you religious bigots let me rephrase that) is becoming morally disfunctional. Once again, for you religious bigots look up the definition of morals, it is neither decided by religion nor legal standards, it is decided by society. We live in a 'society', your personal pleasures do not mean crap! Look up the definition of homosexual, people who enjoy sex with another of the same sex. Being homo means nothing more that enjoying having sex with another (we'll assume another human) of the same sex. The definition says nothing about love, family, social or intellectual interaction, child rearing (not rear-ending) for personal gratification, or any thing other that sex with another of the same sex. So basically, if you are not bum banging or bush munching or any other 'sexual gratification' with another of the same sex you basically are not homosexual. I can love my car, or love my mother or father, or love my kids, or my cat or dog etc. that love does not make me homo, if I bang any one of them, then I am a sexual degenerate. Now I am sure all you homos will try and change the definition of homosexual now like you try to change the ' true and original' definition of marriage, that is how you cope with reality by not accepting it. You are messed up! Your reasons are to try and convince everyone you are o.k. just so you will feel better about yourselves. If you were o.k. with your true selves you wouldn't care about what others thought about you. But you don't, and probably never will.
"We live in a 'society'". "it is decided by society." The same society that they claim has no right to decide what it accepts, and what it decides is immoral. Funny, isn't it?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203224 Jul 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Show me the post where I'm wanting to know medical information pertaining your children? I simply wanted to know how 2 gay guys can have both their DNA on a child. I don't want to know anything about the kids. Why you so scared bro? "My husband and my children are genetically linked to both of us." Can you explain that?
No, he's trying to cloud the isuue with vague references and innuendo. It's all very nonsensical. Whimsical, one might say ...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203225 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>In what state can you find polygamy legal? The question is this Frank, who are the people arguing for polygamy and on what base.
The same states that allowed gay marriage 15 years ago. And, those people would be the REAL equalists. Not haters like you. And the base[sic](basis) would be marriage equality.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203226 Jul 17, 2013
The Original Fry Cook wrote:
Let's see if the diehard liberal shitstains with crushing white guilt can reconcile this:
JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST
TRAYVON: NOT THAT KIND OF WAY
Tue Jul 16 2013 11:55:00 ET
Last night Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial.
Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.
She explained to CNN's Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman -- could be a gay rapist!
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?
She continued:
"And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
You gotta give home-girl cred, she tried her best to seem sensible, but her "relevancy" and "urban-ness" showed too much... After all, "cracka" isn't a racist term, it means a lawman, to her. Not at all a reference to whip-crackers, as the term is really used, by the "urban" and "relevant" crowd...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203227 Jul 17, 2013
The Original Fry Cook wrote:
Let's see if the diehard liberal shitstains with crushing white guilt can reconcile this:
JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST
TRAYVON: NOT THAT KIND OF WAY
Tue Jul 16 2013 11:55:00 ET
Last night Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial.
Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.
She explained to CNN's Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman -- could be a gay rapist!
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?
She continued:
"And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
It's a good thing that she knew about those "gay rapists", isn't it?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203228 Jul 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It possibly means a female relative of his partner's is the biological mother, that would make the brother of the mother, the child's uncle.
"Flowers In The Attic"... Eat the cookies...
Common Man Watch

UK

#203229 Jul 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another mangled assault on language by an ignorant buffoon.
OH, my mistake, it wasn't his father's home. It was his father's fiance's rented home. He had every right to be in that gated community as he was there as a guest.
Martin was never anywhere near Zimmerman's home, so Zimmerman wasn't protecting his home.
Martin, petty thief, casual pot smoker. Dead.
Zimmerman, woman beater, drunkard cop assaulting, judge's spoiled undisciplined son turned killer. Free as a bird. I suspect this won't be his last brush with the law. He's been getting away with stuff for too long. He'll be back. Mark my words. You can go cheer for him too. Maybe even waste some of your hard earned money on his defense fund like some other tools. Oh, BTW, he did tick off the judge when he wasn't honest about this at the bail hearing.
I can see where that would make someone like you jump for joy.
I'm glad you stooped to the lowest common denominator. Nope, not been in trouble with the law unless you consider an occasional speeding ticket to be a sign of a hardened criminal. In fact I have testified regularly on behalf of the state in animal cruelty cases. You, OTOH, are an illiterate buffoon.
I'm sorry, could you steer me to the parts you wrote about Martin being a petty thief and a homophobe?

Thanks in advance.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203230 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Joanie Baloney is having another bad hair day.
:-(
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203231 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do we hate loving adults just because they want to live and marry as a threesome?
On what rational basis do we pick the arbitrary number Two when other (allegedly) arbitrary distinctions have been declared the enemy of decency? Polygamy has a historical and social acceptance in many cultures which far surpasses gay marriage, a very recent phenomenon.
Why should the children of polygamous relationships have to live in shame and be subjected to discrimination, to paraphrase Justice Kennedy?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/polygamy...
Errr, Because the ph4gget$ want to feel special and precious, an overlooked bounty in our midsts? I dunno, it seems very narrow-minded to me, but they call US the haters, go figure...
(damn biased filters)
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203232 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people bitch and complain about it when they are not personally willing to lift a finger, get any signatures, or actually work toward making what they constantly wine and cry about happen?
Because they have every right to?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203233 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey ahole why are YOU using MY registered LEGAL profile
That's1 funny1. Silly1, but1 funny1.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203234 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There seem to be 4 camps
Those that want it for religious reasons
Those that want it for a way to collect extra government support checks
Those that want it as an excuse to molest children
Those that could care less about it but bring it up on forums that are about same sex marriage as a diversion.
None of those 4 reasons bode well for the idea, when folks get past those 4 reasons, then something might happen, but as long as those are the 4 camps, it will go nowhere.
He wasn't asking about SSM, as your answer addresses the concerns about it, it was about polygamy. Please stay on topic..
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203235 Jul 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
There seem to be 4 camps
Those that want it for religious reasons
Those that want it for a way to collect extra government support checks
Those that want it as an excuse to molest children
Those that could care less about it but bring it up on forums that are about same sex marriage as a diversion.
None of those 4 reasons bode well for the idea, when folks get past those 4 reasons, then something might happen, but as long as those are the 4 camps, it will go nowhere.
I'll help you out. they are basing their claims on religious and constitutional grounds. they are requesting the same consideration, however, for the same reasons that quiffies want SSM. Clear now, Captain Confused?
BTW. Those reasons that you mistakenly gave were invalid. You all said so, when they were used against the g4ys. You may not reintroduce them now.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203237 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait for it. This is the bigot's way of setting up a completely mis-representation of what was previous stated. Another example of this tired fundie routine is, "so what you are really saying...".
This allows the fundie to then go off on a tirade based upon something that they made up rather than what was actually stated.
<quoted text>
Actually anyone with half an IQ would realize that it would have to be "of my spouse". The fact that you are confused and think it could be either "me" or "him" shows how ridiculously stupid you are.
<quoted text>
If she was a surrogate, it wasn't her child now was it pumpkin? Honestly, don't you get tired of showing off how stupid you are?
<quoted text>
No dear, we're a full family. Not a damn thing you can do about it. Well, other than childishly post like you are doing. Your pathetic attempts to goad demonstrate your true character. You're a complete c*nt who doesn't mind showing off that fact.
Smile dear.
<quoted text>
I'm sure the children already understand, since they were told and are now practically adults. But please, don't let facts get in the way of continuing your sanctimonious condescension! Watching fundamentalist Christians show off how truly vile they are makes me giddy!!
<quoted text>
Well, being the busy bodied fundie that you are, you do tend to find the stupidest things to be interesting. It's like watching a turkey get excited over something shiny.
<quoted text>
No hon, I realize that c*nts like yourself find it reprehensible. I don't concern myself with what c*nts think.
But thank you hon, for demonstrating to anyone reading this thread what vile people fundamentalist Christians are. Bigots for Jesus!! Smile be-atch!
"Wait for it. This is the bigot's way of setting up a completely mis-representation of what was previous stated. Another example of this tired fundie routine is, "so what you are really saying...".
This allows the fundie to then go off on a tirade based upon something that they made up rather than what was actually stated." We've seen Chongo in action. no need to describe your routines for us, and mis-attribute to us.
"Actually anyone with half an IQ would realize that it would have to be "of my spouse". The fact that you are confused and think it could be either "me" or "him" shows how ridiculously stupid you are."
No need to change the wording, it was perfect already. "Partner" is fine.
"If she was a surrogate, it wasn't her child now was it pumpkin? Honestly, don't you get tired of showing off how stupid you are?"
This is where you claim that surrogate parents are not biological parents. Wrong, ass-munch.
"No dear, we're a full family. Not a damn thing you can do about it. Well, other than childishly post like you are doing. Your pathetic attempts to goad demonstrate your true character. You're a complete c*nt who doesn't mind showing off that fact."
This is where you cloddishly attempt to validate you mismatched family, and to justify your nonsense from earlier. While calling someone a c*nt is meant to display your debating skills.
"I'm sure the children already understand, since they were told and are now practically adults. But please, don't let facts get in the way of continuing your sanctimonious condescension! Watching fundamentalist Christians show off how truly vile they are makes me giddy!!" I'm sure that they do understand, you can't scam them forever. They are certainly aware that they are part of a freakshow.
"Well, being the busy bodied fundie that you are, you do tend to find the stupidest things to be interesting. It's like watching a turkey get excited over something shiny." you'd have a lot of time in, watching turkeys get excited, eh? Interesting times you have...
You're a full blown. We got the picture. so do your kids, who secretly hate you...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203238 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they were not both accurate. I easily demonstrated that. I did so knowing that by admitting to being a father I could then anticipate your intentionally hateful posts about my family.
Thank you so much for not letting me down. Opening the door for ugly people like yourself to show off in all their splendor how truly hateful they are makes me giddy!!
Never think for a moment that fundamentalist Christians won't always show off how truly ugly they are if given the opportunity!
Smile.
They were both accurate. you were born giddy. It is why you think that you and your ..."man" think that you have kids.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203239 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>During the first fights over same sex marriage, the bible and religion where used as a way of denying marriage to gays and lesbians. In this nation we don't make laws based on religion. If the people whom want polygamy are doing so based on religion, the answer is no. Just as it was for denying same sex marriage. It works both ways. The question of polygamy was answered long ago.
Research Service 2
Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that groupís religious law. The individualís belief in the
religionís precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominationsí beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
You're a schmuck. the Constitution guarantees them that right. they seek it, for love. Just the same reasons that the poofs used. To great success. Ask for money, and use "love" as the reason. Find some words in the Constitution that back up the claim. Bang! Irrefusable. Now, grant the same rights, for the same reasons. Unless, of course, you think that the Constitution can be disputed?

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
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'I'm proud to be gay' 21 min Sir Andrew 16
Google Wants to Search Your ... Bloodstream? 14 hr Toppy 4
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) 21 hr HOUSEMD 109
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) Wed maryjaneprincton 10
UPDATE 1-Vivus says erectile dysfunction drug m... (Sep '12) Tue kamilbrown 19
Cupertino Makes Top 10 List of Smartest Suburbs Oct 28 professorpat 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Oct 26 AmandaElise 129

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match

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 ]