Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,767

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.

Read more
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169805 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
While I am enjoying ripping you to shreds, I have work to do in the morning, and I could stay up half the night chewing you up and spitting you out. You can shut up, because I have already shown you to be biased and living in denial. Go call someone else "friend", and "punk", and "moron", someone who has not slam dunked you already, I have done enough work on you.
Really.

Because everything you've managed to throw at me couldn't cause so much as a tickle.

LOL!!!!

Good gawd loser. One thing your sad ass never took into account is that I too was against gay marriage until I examined it from every angle because like you I at one time wanted to fervently prove it was harmful. What happened was that I could find no viable harm in it. And in doing so determined we should not ban a segment of society a freedom such as marriage based solely on bias.

Myself I think your head is buried up your ass so deep the last time you saw sunlight was June 3rd, 1972 but there ya go dumbass.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169806 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are trying to act cute with your "gays don't make efforts to exclude" nonsense. The fact that you guys toss them to the side like bad fruit says it all. Any other form of marriage aside from same sex marriage is insignificant, a red herring, and off topic to you guys.
If you really want people to buy into your "equal right's" BS you really should stop attempting to exclude others through omission.
Whose "you guys" first off.

LOL!!

You may find yourself waking up to voices in your head Sybil but not me.

And no one is tossing polygamists away like "bad fruit". Fact is no one gives a rats ass about polygamists when discussing gay marriage but you and your ilk since it's the only desparate way you can find at derailing arguments in favor of gays marrying.

You've been had friend. Give it a rest.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169807 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!!
Your first "story" is based on hearsay. Add to that it comes from an obviously extreme religious group in a blog of all places. No proof or mention of it anywhere else and you're willing to claim it's factual....LOL!!!!
--You might as well give me a blog which was written by the KKK in which one member claims to have seen a secret government report which outlined blacks were the result of women being raped by chimpanzees - in other words it's bullshit.
Your second article is about a MONK marrying a NUN which is outlined on how a 'brother' married a 'sister'. They are not related in other words moron....the term 'brother' and 'sister' in the religious context of monastaries and such are used to describe priests and nuns you IDIOT.
--You might as well lay claim someone watching NASCAR in the stands claimed cars actually were airplanes because he said "Man....that car really flew by".
LOL!!!!
And your third mention is of an actual brother and sister adopted by different families as infants who met later in life, fell in love, married and had children who only then found out they were related. A once in billion chance and event which I already mentioned in this thread. Hardly proof this happens more often than that.
--Might as well claim people who own 2 headed snakes, drive purple Ford make cars and live in Missouri commonly win Powerball lotteries whose earnings top 400 million or over because one man one.
Your "argument" and your "proof" is pathetic and still shows no harm in gay marriage.
Next.
You believe that if a type of marriage is rare is should be illegal? Please explain the logic behind that dummy.

What a dope!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169808 Dec 4, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, pointing out all the differences in forms of marriage are relevant to the argument against them, that is unless you are talking to the differences with homosexual marriages.
Careful, your inner-bigot is showing.
You can point them out. And you can see their relevance illustrated.

Your problem is you cannot successfully argue the facts brought to your doorstep.

No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant. Add to that the only things people are concerned about if you can actually find polygamists is that they not coerce, marry underage kiddies or use methods of brainwashing in their practice of polygamy....no different than any other marriage moron.

Your inner bigot came out a long time ago with your sad effort at staining gay marriage so I'd shaddup hypocrit.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169809 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
Because everything you've managed to throw at me couldn't cause so much as a tickle.
LOL!!!!
Good gawd loser. One thing your sad ass never took into account is that I too was against gay marriage until I examined it from every angle because like you I at one time wanted to fervently prove it was harmful. What happened was that I could find no viable harm in it. And in doing so determined we should not ban a segment of society a freedom such as marriage based solely on bias.
Myself I think your head is buried up your ass so deep the last time you saw sunlight was June 3rd, 1972 but there ya go dumbass.
Now all you have to do is extend your tolerance to others besides same sex couples who wish to marry but are also banned from doing so.

You know, Mormon Moe and Muslim Mikey and the like. Even if you are bigoted against them. Suck it up Dan! they deserve equality too.

What a jackass!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169810 Dec 4, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe that if a type of marriage is rare is should be illegal? Please explain the logic behind that dummy.
What a dope!
Never did.

Unfortunately your sad ass only serves to play the smartass troll in here so ignoring you like the lonely fool yuo apparently are isn't going to be too tough....have a good day.

LOL!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169811 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Whose "you guys" first off.
LOL!!
You may find yourself waking up to voices in your head Sybil but not me.
And no one is tossing polygamists away like "bad fruit". Fact is no one gives a rats ass about polygamists when discussing gay marriage but you and your ilk since it's the only desparate way you can find at derailing arguments in favor of gays marrying.
You've been had friend. Give it a rest.
You believe polygamists don't deserve equal rights because you're paranoid that they want them only as a trick to deny gays from marrying?

You're a dope, friend!
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#169812 Dec 4, 2012
ScreCorps wrote:
off-topic nonsense
Excuse me, but the title of this thread is "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage".

When you have something to say that pertains to the actual topic of this thread, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU, troll.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169813 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
You can point them out. And you can see their relevance illustrated.
Your problem is you cannot successfully argue the facts brought to your doorstep.
No one cares if polygamists get married dumbshit. For one their numbers are so small they're almost non-existant. Add to that the only things people are concerned about if you can actually find polygamists is that they not coerce, marry underage kiddies or use methods of brainwashing in their practice of polygamy....no different than any other marriage moron.
Your inner bigot came out a long time ago with your sad effort at staining gay marriage so I'd shaddup hypocrit.
You should be concerned about straight and gay people "that they not coerce, marry underage kiddies or use methods of brainwashing in their practice of marriage" too.

Why are you only concerned when polygamists do it? Are you a big dopey bigot or something?

FUN!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169814 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, and if the people wish to marry polygamously, are they not free to choose this, as "our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples." ?
And, until now, the government determined homosexuality a problematic and harmful institution. And let's not forget that harmful elements, such as cultist aspects, which led to underage marriages, can also be found in the gay community. Forgetting that polygamy is not restricted to cultists might be convenient for the gays, so as to separate themselves on the issue of freedom to choose, but the issue is freedom to choose, a right that is being denied to the Mormons, the Jews and a host of other religious groups, based upon the narrow minded view that any polygamist must be a cultist, the same argument that has been used against the gays, up until now. I see a double standard being applied with impunity by you and your kind, selective elitism. How does it feel to be a bigot, and a hater ?
WOW!!!

I must have gotten you ALL whizzed up...LOL!!! You've got upwards of seven (7) posts in response to mine from when I left yesterday.

I answered your idiotic comment above already. Let polygamists marry as long as they don't marry underage kiddies, coercion or brainwashing in doing so. Big wahoo.

In case you missed to subject at hand it's gay marriage and not if Ferrari red is the best color for a sportscar, if prehistoric man was the first to invent the wheel or about polygamy shitforbrains.

As far as being a bigot, you my fine sir, are using any desparate measure you can fabricate in an effort to take down the idea of gayts marrying so you might want to stop puking on yourself Chief.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169815 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Never did.
Unfortunately your sad ass only serves to play the smartass troll in here so ignoring you like the lonely fool yuo apparently are isn't going to be too tough....have a good day.
LOL!!
In other words you can't handle me. Because you are stupid.

Thanks, I'll have a fine day I'm sure!

What a jackass!

Big Fun!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169816 Dec 4, 2012
Dan. What a dope!

Hey Dan. Ignore this!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169817 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, really. Your redefinition of marriage destroys what we have always understood about it. Gays ARE reducing it to a circus trick. Something anyone can do, without any respect for what it has meant, up until now. You cannot simply wave your hand and flourish a pen and create new meanings for ancient traditions. Your utilization of the Huffington Post (a propaganda rag) to provide an example of what a Hollywood story wishes to portray as a reasonable perspective of lesbian motherhood bears little resemblance to the reality of the life. To quote:" ...gay parents have had children in all sorts of family configurations -- whether through adoption, previous heterosexual relationships, or, increasingly, by choosing to have biological offspring using in vitro, surrogate, and other methods." , all examples of broken homes, but that isn't mentioned, is it ? The child not knowing it's heritage, or isn't knowing heritage important anymore ? And I also have links to studies that dispute your claims:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/childr...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/stu...
Turning social order inside out may suit the gay crowd, but it doesn't provide anything to benefit the majority of us. It disrupts the balance and stability that has been vital to our progression and evolution.
Marriage is something any adult should be able to do unless you can produce viable harm in their doing so.

Your sources are outwardly biased by the way. They are not seen as credible any more than if a "study" came from the Westboro Baptist Church on why soldiers sometimes get killed in combat.

You're laughable.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169818 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is something any adult should be able to do unless you can produce viable harm in their doing so.
Your sources are outwardly biased by the way. They are not seen as credible any more than if a "study" came from the Westboro Baptist Church on why soldiers sometimes get killed in combat.
You're laughable.
Give yourself some credit Dan, don't be so modest. You're MUCH more "laughable" than he!

TOO Funny!

P.S. Ignore this.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169819 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, really. Your redefinition of marriage destroys what we have always understood about it. Gays ARE reducing it to a circus trick. Something anyone can do, without any respect for what it has meant, up until now. You cannot simply wave your hand and flourish a pen and create new meanings for ancient traditions. Your utilization of the Huffington Post (a propaganda rag) to provide an example of what a Hollywood story wishes to portray as a reasonable perspective of lesbian motherhood bears little resemblance to the reality of the life. To quote:" ...gay parents have had children in all sorts of family configurations -- whether through adoption, previous heterosexual relationships, or, increasingly, by choosing to have biological offspring using in vitro, surrogate, and other methods." , all examples of broken homes, but that isn't mentioned, is it ? The child not knowing it's heritage, or isn't knowing heritage important anymore ? And I also have links to studies that dispute your claims:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/childr...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/stu...
Turning social order inside out may suit the gay crowd, but it doesn't provide anything to benefit the majority of us. It disrupts the balance and stability that has been vital to our progression and evolution.
BTW goof -

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/stu...

---I saw this one (1) study before.

Flaws this study has in determining whether or not gays can offer healthy outcomes for children in their care as families scream the following.

-This was but one study amongst a myriad of studies before. How is it one study trumps more than the 32 independent studies I had seen before?

-In his study Regnerus claims earlier studies only used a fraction of carefully selected cases in which to draw their conclusions yet offers no proof of this and does not give any proof he himself did not imbibe his study with the same practice.

-And notice that in his study he never drew correlations between gays adopting children whom would otherwise be left in foster care or orphans. Do you in turn think children raised in foster care and orphanges fare well?

Sorry friend....unless I see real proof which can sway me from reading all those studies prior which show in many cases kids fare very well as adults after being raised by gay famailies this is no more than another lame effort by you at grabbing for straws.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169820 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, BTW you have called me a dumb ass one minute, and friend the next, which shows a lack of coherent stability on your part.
Not really.

To me at least you illustrate yourself as a dumbass in here more than a checker trimmed suinflower yellow 4 door car with a flashing light on top advises it's a taxi.

The inclusion of the wording "friend" is not an extension for you to come over and watch the game while eating chips and dip. It's meant in a demeaning way.

You're just too thick to get it apparently.

LOL!!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169821 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, sir, wrong. It is exactly as I have stated. I have no care about who is attracted to whom, I merely have no desire to see legitimacy granted to abnormal coupling, based upon it. Marriage is, and always has been, for 1 man and 1 woman.
Gotcha again.

It's your opinion gay couples are "abnormal".

And if marriage is and always has been for one man and one woman how is it we have numbers of same sex couples whom are legally married now???

DOH!!!

LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169822 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
To me at least you illustrate yourself as a dumbass in here more than a checker trimmed suinflower yellow 4 door car with a flashing light on top advises it's a taxi.
The inclusion of the wording "friend" is not an extension for you to come over and watch the game while eating chips and dip. It's meant in a demeaning way.
You're just too thick to get it apparently.
LOL!!!!
You use "friend" like I use "dope"?

That's dopey, friend!

Too Funny!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#169823 Dec 4, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bullshit at all. Yes, I am for real. As for that link between Slick Willy and gays, it is a lack of moral fiber. Simple. No proof required to verify truth. Truth is self evident. My party bag is full, to overflowing. Were you in the habit of cheating on your wife, or were you unmarried ? Because if you were not married, then you were not required to exhibit monogamous behavior.
And that is what TOPIX is...a format to express your opinion. You hold an opinion gays lack moral fiber.

Well Junior...it's your opinion and I for one have no wish to strip you of it. Your problem comes in when you want to lay claim it's factual and that's where you falter my fine little friend. You cannot provide viable proof in any harm gays marrying causes.

I was not married my entire life idiot. I myself find it hard anything but soime fat Cheeto eating beer guzzling wench weighing in at 295# would hook up with your sorry ass....but that's just my opinion.

LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169824 Dec 4, 2012
Dan.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr truth-facts 52,235
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr NorCal Native 58,706
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Rogue Scholar 05 185,824
News Attitudes shift on illegal immigration, but uni... 17 hr ronnie 6
News California attorney general moves to end anti-g... 18 hr Belle Sexton 24
News Anti-gay initiative puts California attorney ge... 18 hr Belle Sexton 13
News Jerry Brown is mad Ted Cruz is running for pres... 18 hr Sam I Am 3
More from around the web