Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201807 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.

WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170599 Dec 9, 2012
What were you thinking?

Are you some kind of strung out follower of FOX news or something?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170600 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
My response was to this post:
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, stupid, if genitals don't matter when it comes to marriage laws, why can't a woman marry another woman in most states?
To which I responded that it was because SSM was illegal for men and women alike, making her posed question, in regards to this scenario, a non-gender issue.
Hmmm..
Prior to Loving v VA, black/white marriages were illegal for both blacks and whites, so it wasn't a race issue?
WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170601 Dec 9, 2012
Done cooked your own goose, has an average IQ of 80 - which is 20 points lower than the national average.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#170602 Dec 9, 2012
WWYT club wrote:
What were you thinking?
Are you some kind of strung out follower of FOX news or something?
Most people are now, didn't you know.

They wanted fair and balanced news.

And of course not having to look at Candy Crawley...

Smirk.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170603 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you. If we had video capability in here, I'd show you how easily I could use a $100 bill to light up one of my expensive cigars, little boy.
Well, then you would be able to afford video capability. Even cell phones have it.
Looks like you got called on your BS.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#170604 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, You show your inability to understand valid reasoning. Second, The 14th Amendment does not require anyone to marry. Third, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and in doing so declares mainstream doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. You'll have to define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. And, finally, fourth, gay marriage isn't an institution, yet, and it won't be. It is a flash in the pan, and will disqualified soon.
mADE UP??

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.[1][2][3][4]

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2] According to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias."[5] Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."[6]

Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia,[7] and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify. Forms of homophobia toward identifiable LGBT social groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia[8]– the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia – towards bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia, which targets transsexualism, transsexual and transgender people, and gender variance or gender role nonconformity.

Two words originate from homophobia: homophobic (adj.) and homophobe (n.), the latter word describing a person who displays homophobia or is thought to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

NOT SO MUCH BUTTER CUP
2 posts removed

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170607 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorant dolt, you pretend to misunderstand, but you attempting misdirection, again. You posed a question concerning women not being able to marry one another.
And they can't, because of their genders. Duh, fugly.
R Hudson wrote:
This I explained thusly. Then you posed the same question in reverse, after adding some inter-racial nonsense, which I clarified. Now, you ask a question, based on marriage laws. I answered those, now, Answer mine. Show where I approve of slavery, if you can.
I've done that.(170451)You claimed slavery made America great, that sounds like approval to me.
R Hudson wrote:
State your religious beliefs. If you can speak properly. And explain why gay people should be allowed to marry. Equate heterosexuality with homosexuality.
Again, you hideous moron, gay couples should be allowed to marry because men and women should have equal rights when it comes to marriage.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations.
I'm an Orthodox Jew (like you are a Wiccan...LOL!)
3 posts removed
WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170611 Dec 9, 2012
It will be 2013 soon so get your brain set on advancement.
1 post removed
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170613 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Queers, and heteros alike, use terms, such as this, to denote softness, as in this derogatory statement that I was directing to the poster that I was posting to. Are you foolishly trying to play "connect the dots" and failing to make the correct connection? Really, you should not try to conduct a battle of wits, when you are plainly unarmed, and ill-prepared for such an encounter. I did like your comment about Jan Brewer, but you generally come across as a dumbass. I decided to resign from the union, however, not because you said that I must, but because my union dues can stay in my pocket. I prefer them there. If you are going to shoot blindly into the crowd, then you are an unfocused little fellow. I am against SSM, and would expect you to be, also, from your posts. Do you have anything resembling an education? Or are you simply a fool with no serious points to make ? Seems to me that you are simply a clown, who wishes to argue with anyone. Not that I mind the presence of a fool, it adds to the targeting richness in here, but please try to show some idea of who is on which side. It makes more sense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/geor...

FYI
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170614 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person’s fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself.“Gay” activists simply stole the term and redefined it as “hate and/or fear of
homosexuals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/gay-...

---Oh my.

---More factual happenings.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170615 Dec 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
The fundamental basis of marriage is a cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
There is an obvious distinction between redumbant gender couples and diverse gendered couples. You know, the union of Mars and Venus vs the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
Pointless prattle. Marriage is a legal contract. Marriage is a right. We should have equal rights in the US. You are against equality.
KiMare wrote:
Which brings us to the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning factor of anal sex. A violent abuse of evolutionary design.
That makes no sense.
And no matter how often you are told the facts, you try to equate anal sex and homosexuality. MOST people who have anal sex are straight. And not all gay people do. Anal sex isn't inherently harmful, demeaning or unhealthy. More importantly, the sex acts people choose to engage in are none of the government's business.
KiMare wrote:
On a more personal level, a love relationship between diverse
genders results in human fruit.
Since you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, that's a non issue. Learn the facts!
KiMare wrote:
The singular birthplace of every single other relationship. Worth of distinction and protection. You are a product of such. However, your duplicate relationship is absolutely desolate. There is no more a profound distinction...
All of this makes it absolutely idiotic to equate the two relationships. A silly attempt to impose an imposter relationship on marriage. A counterfeit that becomes more and more exposed the closer it is joined to the real thing.
Smile.
Do you think you should have been aborted? Can you reproduce? If you could, would your kids also be, as you claim you are "monsters"?:)
1 post removed
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170617 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
While you're about answering my questions, do tell where the video button is, in here ? Then, perhaps I can use my technology to show me doing exactly that. I'm sorry, did you say something about BS ?
Looks like there's a shift taking place.

"One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-pl...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170618 Dec 9, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/gay-...
---Oh my.
---More factual happenings.
---Oh my.

---Dan.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170619 Dec 9, 2012
Dan C wrote:
Boring.
1 post removed

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170621 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, You show your inability to understand valid reasoning. Second, The 14th Amendment does not require anyone to marry.
But, it requires that people get equal protection under the law. You do know it was sited in Loving v VA? You do know what was a case about marriage?
R Hudson wrote:
Third, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents.
Why do homophobes object to the word? And all words are invented.
R Hudson wrote:
It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and in doing so declares mainstream doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. You'll have to define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.
LOL! If you are opposed to homosexuality, you are homophobic, by definition really. Sort of like a person who is opposed to white people would be racist.
R Hudson wrote:
And, finally, fourth, gay marriage isn't an institution, yet, and it won't be. It is a flash in the pan, and will disqualified soon.
No, it will be legal in all 50 soon, and in less than a generation, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
2 posts removed

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170624 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your insults are a poor substitute for logic. Second, I did not say any such thing, show where I did, along with showing where I said that I approve of slavery. Third, you are describing a scenario that does not match with the first one that I tore apart. This is a different one. And you are also mixing your genders,
If gender isn't the issue, why would that matter any more than mixing hair colors?
R Hudson wrote:
now, misdirection again, as described by AKPilot. Neither will be allowed to marry in the majority of states, because SSM is still illegal in most states. Not a gender issue, an issue of sexual behavior.
You claim it's an issue of sexual behavior? It's not. No matter what type of sexual behavior a woman engages in, she isn't allowed to marry a woman in all 50. And why not? Because gender is the issue.
R Hudson wrote:
Dragging in some garbage about inter-racial marriage is a poor attempt at obfuscation. We aren't destroying any myths about SSM, with that inter-racial garbage.
Did you just learn the word "obfuscation"? Well, learn how to use it properly before you use it again.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170625 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
AKPilot,
Please, carry on, destroying Chongo....
Get a room.
WWYT club

Covina, CA

#170626 Dec 9, 2012
Club members rule.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170627 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Tactic 1 and 2
<quoted text>
Tactic 1 and 2 again.
Misdirect as she knows damn well the terms we are talking about are LOLSER and CONDUMB not Equal and Rights. This could also fall into the "acting stupid" category.
<quoted text>
Tactic 1
<quoted text>
Tactic's 2,3 and 7
Good work Rose, I am proud of you.
Rose tactic #1- Act stupid-(not so sure it is an act)
Rose Tactic #2- Misdirect
Rose Tactic #3- Make stupid comments until opposition is tired of replying then claim victory
Rose Tactic #4- Attack the poster- scream Racist, Bigot, Homophobe
Rose Tactic #5- Act intelligent by making silly statistical references such as- Most people who have anal sex are straight-
Rose Tactic #6- Falsely accuse others of lies- when proven wrong through links to previous posts revert back to tactics 2 and 4.
Rose Tactic #7- Claim to have made an argument, then claim others can't counter the argument that doesn't actually exist.
akpilot's only tactic - post his stupid list and avoid dealing with my argument.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170628 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I highly doubt that I am the first, and the internet is the only place- you have been called a moron.
That is probably why you get so upset about it.
You can't argue against my arguments, so you'll just call me names.

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 Tim Scott Touts Body Cameras, Conservative Ideas 1 min Le Jimbo 1
News Populism could divide the Grand Old Party 3 min Le Jimbo 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Le Jimbo 180,556
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 5 min xxxrayted 718
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min ChristineM 6,734
News NYPD officer shot in head dies, commissioner ci... 11 min TOASTER 70
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min replaytime 162,197
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr snow 1,225,065
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr My Bong 326,638
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 4 hr serfs up 86
More from around the web