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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137331 Apr 23, 2012
Kokker Sokker wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually gays are the Devil's creation, when God was going to take a dump Satan switched the toilet signs so God unknowingly moved the Royal Turd in the Lady's Room. Then Satan immediately blew the breath of life on the Royal Turd and VOILA! A GAY IS BORN!
You must be one of those fundamentalist Christians we've heard about. Such lovely people.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137332 Apr 23, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never argued "that fellow citizens should be held as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws",
Yes, you have and you do. You do it later in this very post.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
there is no law stopping homosexuals from marrying under the same rules as everyone else.
The "rules" you mention are discriminatory. Yet you promote them. Thanks for proving your opening sentence was a lie.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
What you want is a special rule so government would recognize same sex marriage;
No, that isn't what we want. The fact that you've been obsessed with these gay themed chat rooms for years now and still have no clue about this issue says volumes about your stupidity and your lack of character.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
that's a radical redefinition of a fundamental social institution.
No radical redefinition exists. Which is why you are never able to give the old and new definitions you allude to, or indicate the "radicalness" of the differences. You just spout tired, baseless rhetoric because you have no real argument.

Repetition of baseless rhetoric is the sin qua non of idiots.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that change would create more evil than good.
You beleive a lot of unsupported nonsense. This is just another example.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
One example, that same sex marriage says either a mother or father is disposable.
The marriages of gay people says no such thing. More clap trap from the Village Idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep marriage between husband and wife because every gay was born of heterosexual union.
Another baseless lie.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137333 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Another incoherent post by you, Fortuna.
Of course at this point everyone knows you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer so I suppose it really doesn't matter.
The LGBT is a cult.
In every respect its members exhibit cult behavior. Earlier I discussed their "sacred science". Sacred science is yet another characteristic of cults. In the LGBT its far-reaching and meant to address all the flaws in general belief system.
You'll note that they keep creating new categories for their members. Over the years they've included bisexual and transgender.
You're a bench warmer and bench warmers like you are a component of all cults. You believe the LGBT has "A Simple Formula for Happiness and Enlightenment" but because of your personal situation you cant' join the cult at this time.
You pine for a time in the future where this will change; in the meantime you show your solidarity the only way you can: logging in every night and supporting everything the LGBT says.
Ok, so LGBT is cult -- but why is this bad? Here's why:
Denial of the truth.
Reversal of reality.
Rationalization and Denial.
A cult is an assemblage of people who don't want to know the truth. They often claim that they do; they may talk about "Seeking the Truth", or "Seeking to Understand the Word of the Lord", or even "having the Truth", but they actually do not want to hear the truth. They just want their own beliefs and superstitions confirmed.
Men, in order to do evil, must first believe that what they are doing is good.
== Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Yawn. Another day, same baseless repetition. The sin qua non of idiots.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137334 Apr 23, 2012
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
My experience with homosexuality is...
zip, nada, nil.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137335 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
LGBT SACRED SCIENCE
As touched on earlier, all cults have a "sacred science" -- a set of beliefs purportedly proven by tons of scientific papers but in reality amounts to little more than superstition and urban legend.
The LGBT sex cult is no different. Here's a few of their junk science ideas:
1. Born that way.
2. Gay curriculum cannot convert heterosexual kids to homosexuality
3. Homosexuals can't be pedophiles -- your're either one or the other.
4. Gay males are not attracted to hetero males.
5. Anal sex is as safe and wholesome as mom's apple pie.
6. Homosexual promiscuity had nothing to do with the HIV-AIDS epidemic.
7. Gay (male) adoption has no negative effects on the child.
8. Dressing in Penis suits during gay pride parades has nothing to do with hedonism or sex.
9. Every famous person in history was gay, including Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon, Jesus, at. el
10. All Homophobes are "closet gays."
I can go on but I'll stop here.
These are the tenents of LGBT "sacred science" which all gays and gay wannabees subscribe to and promote.
Indeed, if a member of the LGBT voices opposition to any of these ideas he risks censure, excommunication, or worse (Randy Shilts was excommunicated for his book "The Band Played On.".
Typical cult behavior.
Still stereotyping I see. Good for you. Keep proving your creepy obsession of gay males is based on, well, nothing but your personal creepiness.

Carry on assclown.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137336 Apr 23, 2012
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, there is no morality in a physical defect.
Nor is there morality in sexual orientation.

But don't let facts get in the way of your mindless rambling.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137337 Apr 23, 2012
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignore the inability to express homosexuality sexually in a non-harmful or healthy way.
No, he didn't. You compared it with a debilitating disease. The onus is on you to establish the unhealthiness and the harm that you imply.

We're all waiting.....
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
You also ignore the clear and absolute declaration of evolution that it is a genetic defect.[QUOTE]
There is absolutely no clear or absolute declaration that it is a genetic defect. That's something you've just made up. We represent a small percentage of the population. We always have, and we always will. That's the norm. Sorry the truth is so hard for you. Here are some other small percentages of the population that have always been and always will be. Left handed people, and people that inately like brussel sprouts. While they are not the majority, they are still part of the norm.

You might do well to realize that "majority" and "normal" are not the same thing. Until you do, you will just keep making an asshat of yourself.

[QUOTE who="Ki Marea"]<quoted text>
You are trying to equate 4% of the population (glbt) with 96% of the population.
Really? In which post did this "equation" take place? Specifics please to support your nonsense.
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not normal.
No, actually, having a disdain for people you don't like because of religious indoctrination, publically making up nonsense to support that disdain, and wilfully ignoring facts and research in order to promote your completely unfounded disdain, is not normal.
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just a start.
Yawn. Unfounded bravado is always so cute.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137338 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Below I've listed the rule of recusal for judges. Apparently, Judge Walker kept his homosexuality a secret. Then, after deciding the case, he promptly retired.
In other words this judge is guilty of three ethical failings:
No dear, your "in other words" is simply more nonsense from a failed author who has a very creepy obsession with gay men and the sex that some of them have.

There is no "in other words". Your entire rant here has already been debunked by Federal Judge Ware. He ruled that Judge Walker had no reason to recuse himself. Sorry that reality is so difficult for you.

But please, don't let that get in the way of you mindlessly cutting and pasting more repititious, baseless rhetoric.

Baseless repetition is the sin qua non of idiots.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137339 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Pretty incredible that you people are actually saying Judge Walker -- a San Francisco gay male living with his partner -- didn't have a bias toward gay marriage.
Nothing incredible about it. But please, if you'd like to continue with your baseless repetition, why don't you try backing it up.

Here are the 80 findings from Judge Walker. Please feel free to demonstrate the bias presented in any of the findings.

To date, no one on your side has been able to do that. Perhaps you, a creepy malcontent, will be the one to finally do it!

http://adellefrank.com/blog/review-summary-wa...

Come on Prof Marveless, do your kind proud!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137340 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And this guy defends Walker's bias!
No, you lying sack of creepy shyt, he didn't. He defended his right to make the decision. None of us have defended Walker's "bias" because it doesn't exist. It's just something you just keep trying to establish through repetition. You've yet to establish this bias, so no defence of it exists.

But don't let facts get in the way of you demonstrating you have absolutely no integrity whatsoever, and will lie and twist in order to try and promote your agenda.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
He tells us because its a gay rights bias it's permitted by the Constitution.
No, that isn't what he tells. That is your intentional misrepresentation of what he told. Intentional misrepresentation is a common tactic of your kind. It's a lovely thing to watch you do, because it demonstrates so succinctly the desperation of your agenda.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Now are you beginning to see how delusional these people are?
The only one demonstrating delusion here is you. Now, why don't you go put on your creepy penis suit, march yourself down to the local baths, and see if you can find another draq queen to polish off your lacking manhood again. You could use the stress relief I'm sure.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137341 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
I don't expect the gays in this forum to respond intelligently to the question of Walker's bias;
You shouldn't. Until you can demonstrate the bias, there would be no intelligent reason to respond.

Let us know when you can demonstrate the bias, can you do that clown?
Prof Marvel wrote:
But you heteros aren't, so I'll put the question to you:
I see. You delusionally think now that heteros will comment on a bias you have yet to demonstrate? Good luck with that. let me guess....like homosexuals, you believe they are all going to have one common mindset, right dear?!
Prof Marvel wrote:
Why do you believe Judge Walker, a San Francisco gay male who lives with his gay partner, doesn't have a bias toward same-sex marriage?
Because your kind has been unable to demonstrate it.

Any other stupid questions dickhead?
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#137342 Apr 23, 2012
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible theory as you call it was used to show you that this economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the benefits homosexuals are entiled to.
Why don't you stop throwing in the benefit theory, it is obvious that homosexual pay into to those benefits just as you do, and I'm sure you want to collect your benefits. So what I'm saying is homosexuals just want the very same benefits that we get. Why would you think there is a need to vote, unless you are willing to give up your benefits if the vote goes against people getting the benefits they payed into. Are you?
Yes I am joey, and I'm glad you are too. However when two people of the same sex get married it changes the entire senario. The word spouse means partner, husband and wife; NOT partner, and OR husband and wife. Everythin must be rewritten to conform to hos getting married. This well not stop here, homos are pushing for the lifestyle of homosexuality to be taught as a subject in public schools another expense and inconvenience.I think that if the homosexuals want these changes then they can payp for the cost of doing it. No SSM in the U.S. It is so obvious that homos are an unknown, and second class of people

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137343 Apr 23, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I am joey, and I'm glad you are too. However when two people of the same sex get married it changes the entire senario.
Really? Interesting. Please support that statement my outlining the scenerio of why a gay couple would get married that is completely changed from a straight couple?

Waiting...

Waiting....

Waiting...
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
The word spouse means partner, husband and wife; NOT partner, and OR husband and wife.
More nonsense from the Penguin Boy!!

Spouse has a definition. Look it up. The definition applies to both straight and gay couples.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Everythin must be rewritten to conform to hos getting married.
Ooooh, so dramatic! Legal forms are changed all the time and are budgeted for such because we are a democratic republic whose laws change on a daily basis. Same with text books. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
This well not stop here, homos are pushing for the lifestyle of homosexuality to be taught as a subject in public schools another expense and inconvenience.
1) Corriculums change on an ongoing basis and are budgeted for such. Your expense and inconvenience is subterfuge.
2) Gays are quite aware that we don't have a "lifestyle" so you will not find us promoting that such nonsense be taught in the public schools. The only people promoting gay lifestyles are idiots like yourself that also promote that idea that penquins are capable of flight.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that if the homosexuals want these changes then they can payp for the cost of doing it.
We didn't pay for the cost of the incorrect and negative texts that bigots like yourself established, why should we pay for their correction?

Seriously, this is how lame your bigotry is now? Your entire argument rests on the cost of changing paperwork? LOL! What a tool.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
No SSM in the U.S.
No SSM anywhere. Only marriage.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
It is so obvious that homos are an unknown, and second class of people
No, that's not obvious at all, that's merely your dream.

Now run along and feed the migrating penguins in your park.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137344 Apr 23, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you lying sack of creepy shyt, he didn't. He defended his right to make the decision. None of us have defended Walker's "bias" because it doesn't exist. It's just something you just keep trying to establish through repetition. You've yet to establish this bias, so no defence of it exists.
I see.

So your point is Judge Walker, a San Francisco gay who's lived with his partner for years, does not have a bias toward homosexuality?

Or are you saying judges don't have biases?

Or... perhaps you're saying some judges have biases but it's impossible for a homosexual judge to have a biases?

Is that what you're saying, fella?
think about it

United States

#137345 Apr 23, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in this country, which was only discovered 520 years ago, and has only been independent for 234 years.
The 14th Amendment mandates that state provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws; and the US Supreme Court has held that constitutional right may only be infringed if doing so serves a compelling state interest. Those on your end of this debate consistently lack the ability to indicate any such interest.
<quoted text>
Feel free to explain. In doing so, you will only make a fool of yourself.
<quoted text>
Are you trying to make an argument of procreation, because that would be irrelevant. Heterosexuals incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry, which disproves such a rationalization.
<quoted text>
No, we are stating that ALL persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, plain and simple. Unless, of course, you are capable of articulating a legitimate state interest served by denying certain persons those rights. And, quite frankly, I don't think you are capable of doing so.
<quoted text>
It's a poor start at best, and each of your points is not fully articulated, nor supported by fact. Feel free to start anew with a more valid argument.
by the way this country was not discorved 520 years ago my people were all ready here so you cant discorver what was allready diiscorved and we all know how fair your gov. Was with the people who were here frist

Since: Jan 10

Charleston, WV

#137346 Apr 23, 2012
think about it wrote:
<quoted text> by the way this country was not discorved 520 years ago my people were all ready here so you cant discorver what was allready diiscorved and we all know how fair your gov. Was with the people who were here frist
Not only that, this continent was discovered by Europeans then, a Country was founded on it only 236 years ago. Actually the Vikings, my ancestors, found it way before that. The first humans here is currently estimated between 40k and 30k years ago.

Since: Jan 10

Charleston, WV

#137347 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So your point is Judge Walker, a San Francisco gay who's lived with his partner for years, does not have a bias toward homosexuality?
Or are you saying judges don't have biases?
Or... perhaps you're saying some judges have biases but it's impossible for a homosexual judge to have a biases?
Is that what you're saying, fella?
His point is your a creepy person. You keep repeating the same crap over and over, like you think you know more than the California Judicial System. what we hate in others is usually what we hate in ourselves, which leads me to believe you are a closeted gay.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#137348 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
I highly doubt that.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
So your point is Judge Walker, a San Francisco gay who's lived with his partner for years, does not have a bias toward homosexuality?
No, my point was that Judge Walker demonstrated no bias in his decision concerning Prop 8. Just as I stated. If I need you to pretend to speak for me, I'll let you know.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Or are you saying judges don't have biases?
If that's what I had intended to say, I would have. But since I didn't state that, I guess we are all just watching you flap around in your intentional deceitfulness.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Or... perhaps you're saying some judges have biases but it's impossible for a homosexual judge to have a biases?
Nope, didn't say that either. Didn't even imply it. Keep flapping.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you're saying, fella?
Not at all Professor Creepy. What I said was, Judge Walker demonstrated no bias in his decision concerning Prop 8. I actually stated that several times. Is there something wrong with your comprehension skills?

If you disagree, please feel free to point out which of the 80 findings demonstrate this bias that you keep trying to imply exists.
1 post removed

“Out and Proud”

Since: Dec 10

Concord, California

#137350 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Pretty incredible that you people are actually saying Judge Walker -- a San Francisco gay male living with his partner -- didn't have a bias toward gay marriage.
Next you'll be telling us Hitler didn't have a bias against Jews.
Of course Judge Walker had a bias which is why he kept his homosexuality a secret then promptly retired before any action could be taken against him and his retirement package.
There's not a gay on the planet who isn't for same-sex marriage, yet you'd have us believe somehow Walker was absolutely neutral on the topic.
And we've touched on this before, haven't we?
It's called "cult behavior" and your unwillingness to be honest on the Judge Walker question is a textbook example of it.
You're not being honest; you're exhibiting the kind of "we're right even when we're wrong" behavior we see in all cults.
Essentially, what you're telling is is gays don't have to play by the rules everyone else does -- that gays are exempt. You don't have to honor our marriage laws; you don't have to honor our recusal rules.
Likewise our ethics and anything else you care to ignore.
That's what you fellows call "equality."
That's why you march down the streets in penis suits pulling your half-nude "bottoms" behind you on dog leashes.
No, that's not equality either, boys.
Then tell me this PM why did he not get married when he could have. What reason would he have to wait. He did not get the case until way after prop 8 passed. So why did he wait. he has been with his Partner why before prop 8 was even thought about. You seem to like to stir the pot alot. Answer my questions. Or am going to treat you like a treat Buno. A dumb little child.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137351 Apr 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
I see.
So you say.
Prof Marvel wrote:
So your point is Judge Walker, a San Francisco gay who's lived with his partner for years, does not have a bias toward homosexuality?
Or are you saying judges don't have biases?
Or... perhaps you're saying some judges have biases but it's impossible for a homosexual judge to have a biases?
Is that what you're saying, fella?
Feel free to prove it. I invite you to cite specific portions of the decision that illustrate any such bias, or that do not show a foundation in fact, law or reason.

You will not be capable of doing so.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Bongo 15,720
News Psychiatrists say Trump is mentally ill 13 min Humanspirit 85
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 24 min James 1,546
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 26 min Grey Ghost 1,563,948
News Anti-racist author Tim Wise: White America desp... 47 min 9a43w62x 792
News Donald Trump's lawyers seek to undercut Mueller... 1 hr Ms Sassy 12
News Layoffs begin at Carrier plant that drew Trump'... 1 hr Ms Sassy 29
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 hr Ms Sassy 279,311
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 6 hr Let Freedom Ring 491
News Democrats, civil rights group aim to block Trum... 7 hr bottlecap 79
More from around the web