REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Sore losers dance

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 15:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6097
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:55 AM

WHOZIT


http://www.breitbart.tv/html/233083.html I'm sure this will make everyone who voted for Prop 8 change there minds.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:14 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


The post-election analysis has shown again and again that the massive Africian American turnout in California for Obama was the largest reason prop 8 went the way it did.

Another interesting tidbit has been the recient turnout in Georgia yesterday. Republican Saxby Chambliss won the election last month by a hair, but Georgia law requires that a winner must have over 50% and Saxby was at 49. Therefore a runoff between the top 2 was required. Where Saxby BARELY sqeeked out a win in Nov, he CRUSHED the democrat this time around with a whopping 14 points. Why is this?

Because the Obama Zombies...whom I now call Obambies...won't take part in the election process without O. To them, voting for pres is the only vote that matters and they have no connection nor understanding of the way our government works. To them, Nov 4 was a pop culture thing. That's all. Many of these people never voted before and will only vote one more time in their lives, Nov 2012.

So the prop 8 losers just need to wait for an election where Obama isn't involved to push their agenda again. I also note in the musical that the negative focus is on the Mormans. No mention is made of the anti-gay black or muslim communities, all of whom voted in California. As will always be the case, the left picks on christians.

The analysis makes me feel ill, because I'm talking about people I dislike needing to plan around more people I dislike. But then again, I have no horse in this race, viewing it with marginal intrest from the midwest.


Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:33 PM

RIGHTEOUS9




No need to pass legislation...it wasn't us who were pushing an agenda in the first place.

The courts will act responsibly, again, and declare the prop 8 legistlation unconstitutional.

.........


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:40 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


No need to pass legislation...it wasn't us who were pushing an agenda in the first place.

The courts will act responsibly, again, and declare the prop 8 legistlation unconstitutional.

.........


Left-Wing judges to the rescue!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:46 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


if you want to call Judges who actually read the Constitution, left-wing, be my guest.

the last time a bill like this was struck down, it was by more Republican Judges than Democratic ones. Not sure what that says about your point, though it does say to me that some Republicans do respect the rule of law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:49 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Left-Wing judges to the rescue!



hear hear


Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:52 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
if you want to call Judges who actually read the Constitution, left-wing, be my guest.

the last time a bill like this was struck down, it was by more Republican Judges than Democratic ones. Not sure what that says about your point, though it does say to me that some Republicans do respect the rule of law.

Where in the Constitution is this?

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:00 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


look up the 14th amendment,

look up the 9th amendment,

and then consider "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" for American consciousness.

And explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

I can't think of any Constitutional Law off the top of my head that limits freedom "just because." All other laws can be parsed as "this liberty vs. this liberty..."my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody" "right to life vs. your right to own your own agent orange...etc."

What are the battling liberties in this case that justifies banning gay marriage?

.........

I thought of one. Suicide is illegal...but allowing for the proper metric of the person choosing that course of action, I don't see how it's justifiable to outlaw it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Or how, exactly, you would enforce it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:50 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
look up the 14th amendment,

look up the 9th amendment,

and then consider "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" for American consciousness.

And explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

I can't think of any Constitutional Law off the top of my head that limits freedom "just because." All other laws can be parsed as "this liberty vs. this liberty..."my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody" "right to life vs. your right to own your own agent orange...etc."

What are the battling liberties in this case that justifies banning gay marriage?

.........

I thought of one. Suicide is illegal...but allowing for the proper metric of the person choosing that course of action, I don't see how it's justifiable to outlaw it.

I looked up the 9th amendment, but there are state rites issues also. Abortion is legal in all 50 state because of the 14th amendment, why have'nt you guys used that to make gay marrage legal in all 50 states, instead of picking them off one at a time?

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:50 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
look up the 14th amendment,

look up the 9th amendment,

and then consider "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" for American consciousness.

And explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

I can't think of any Constitutional Law off the top of my head that limits freedom "just because." All other laws can be parsed as "this liberty vs. this liberty..."my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody" "right to life vs. your right to own your own agent orange...etc."

What are the battling liberties in this case that justifies banning gay marriage?

.........

I thought of one. Suicide is illegal...but allowing for the proper metric of the person choosing that course of action, I don't see how it's justifiable to outlaw it.

I looked up the 9th amendment, but there are state rites issues also. Abortion is legal in all 50 state because of the 14th amendment, why have'nt you guys used that to make gay marrage legal in all 50 states, instead of picking them off one at a time?

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:53 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?



Answer: There is no liberty at stake either way. The freedom of allowing 2 people to be together, regardless of sexual preference, should be the only issue. There is not 1 state in the 50 that denies liberty in this way. There are, however, locations in the broader world where you will be beheaded for being gay. In those places, you have a case.

The issue on this thread is the formal recognition of the state of California over who is "married". This is then related to how a couple can file taxes or pursue insurance.

It is therefore about money.

The two of you are arguing above about what the constitution means in relation to this issue...14th amendment....9th amendment....blah blah blah. There is only 1 amendment that applies on the federal level:

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is why Prop 8 is a STATES ISSUE. And California wisely chose to deal with it in the form of a refrendum. Citizens voted. It's honestly the purest form of democracy out there, a straight vote tally. The other action would be to have debated it on the floor of the California General Assembly, the process of a Republic.

The sad thing that goes unreported is that the gay political forces in Cali were certain prop 8 would go their way, representing a final irreversable victory. But then the unexpected happened: A larger community of O supporters spoke. Now losers cry foul.

This is a republic, a union of states. There is no federal law preventing someone from moving to Vermont. Just icy cold weather and the loss of lazy days in San Fransico.





Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

This is a republic, a union of states. There is no federal law preventing someone from moving to Vermont. Just icy cold weather and the loss of lazy days in San Fransico.



And the Castro district!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 5:22 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:



I also note in the musical that the negative focus is on the Mormans. No mention is made of the anti-gay black or muslim communities, all of whom voted in California. As will always be the case, the left picks on christians.



Probably because those groups didn't pour millions of dollars into a misleading ad campaign supporting the proposition.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 8:32 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I also note in the musical that the negative focus is on the Mormans. No mention is made of the anti-gay black or muslim communities, all of whom voted in California. As will always be the case, the left picks on christians.


I do believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that the issue the Mormon Church is being 'picked on' about is that there was funding or somesuch from them in support of prop 8. Something that was a blatant disregard for the rules that protect their tax-exempt status, anyway. I recall it as being funding, but it might also have been telling their congregations explicitly how to vote, because I heard something about that sort of thing as well (I think it was more related to the Presidential race, though)
So yeah, how dare they be criticized for that kind of thing? Churches should be able to do whatever they please and be totally tax-free while they do it. Yeah.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:36 PM

RIGHTEOUS9



They thought it would go their way, but then maybe they just depended on the decency of their fellow Americans. They are interested in their rights, and justice for them, not in giving up on that dream when it is quashed ignorantly by people who have no frikken stake in the matter.

..........

dude, if the 9th amendment doesn't apply here, I'd like you to give me one frikking example where that amendment does apply then, so I can figure out what the hell the difference is. People keep telling me this amendment doesn't matter for antything. Then why the fuck is it there?

.........

Prop 8 is not a state issue because that would blatantly contradict the 14th, and 9th amendment.

And since you think it's a states rights issue, let me post part of the 14th amendment here, for your consideration.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is something hard to undertand here?

There is no federal law prohibiting anybody from moving to Vermont, there is however ample federal law prohibiting people from having to, in order to pursue their happiness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:03 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

If the 9th amendment doesn't apply here, I'd like you to give me one frikking example where that amendment does apply then, so I can figure out what the hell the difference is.



Easily Done. I shall transcribe text from a liberal website to make my case stronger, though I really don't need to do so since I well understand the 9th amendment myself.

Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.

How is all this playing out on our most vital constitutional front, the Supreme Court, today? The Court is sharply divided over whether the Constitution provides broad protection for human rights and just what those rights are. On one side have been those Justices who believe that the Constitution does give such broad protection--not just to those freedoms explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights but to other fundamental aspects of liberty. In honoring not merely the Framers' text but the intent behind it, these Justices have supported, for example, the right to abortion, the right of gays to have sexual relationships, and the right to die. More generally, these Justices have proclaimed: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."


Therefore on the federal level, the rights of the people to pursue happiness has been upheld. The issue in California does not apply as it is in the arena of the State's right to determine who it deems as legally "married". The converse would be to interperate the constitution in such a way that demands 50 states go a singular way on this issue. That road often leads to insurection. This is why the states are allowed rights of self-governance. One reason I enjoy Firefly are the politics of the Unification War, which was fought over the rights of rim planets to self-govern.


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

And since you think it's a states rights issue, let me post part of the 14th amendment here, for your consideration.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is something hard to undertand here?



Again it's easily understood. And my previous copied text above addresses it. I said before that if a gay person was going to have his head cut off in Yemen, there is a case to be made. We don't do things like that here. As a Libertarian I live the libertarian lifestyle:

Pursue happiness and enjoy your rights so long as you do not violate the rights of others, nor inhibit their ability to pursue their happiness"

While you might see that as contradictory to the atmosphere surrounding prop 8, understand that I must view this issue from the lens of the broader statement of Cali citizens, as expressed by their vote on Nov 4.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


No need to pass legislation...it wasn't us who were pushing an agenda in the first place.

The courts will act responsibly, again, and declare the prop 8 legistlation unconstitutional.

.........




The courts tried that once, which is why Prop 8 came to be in the 1st place. The people have spoken, twice,

Gays in civil unions have every bit the 'rights' as married straight couples, and there's nothing keeping gays from "loving " anyone they want to anyways.

Get over it.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:48 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Seperate but Equal is a system of segregation giving different facilities or services to different groups with the declaration that the quality of each group's facilities remain equal.

I cannot see the declaration that 'Gay civil unions' are equal to 'Straight marriage' as being any different than saying "Nigger water fountains" are equal to "White water fountains."

Hey, they both provide water, so what's the big deal, right?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I cannot see the declaration that 'Gay civil unions' are equal to 'Straight marriage' as being any different than saying "Nigger water fountains" are equal to "White water fountains."

Hey, they both provide water, so what's the big deal, right?

--Anthony



I was watching Universal HD last night, and they played the early 80's move, Blue Thunder, with Roy Sheider, about an experimental police helicopter. Aside from the fact they didn't cut the scene where the hotty doing her yoga exercises in the buff, I was surprised at the terminology used in the movie, now so outdated. There was a robbery being committed, and the call came over the radio , describing the perp to be " a male negro " . This was 1983, and not 1963, but then I realized, it was suppose to be the Los Angeles P.D., which is probably how they still refer to such suspects.





It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:26 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




The voice of the citizenship does't trump the 14th amendment, nor could we by simple majority Constitutionally return to separate but equal, nor could we by majority decide that muslims should pay a higher percentage of taxes and that "they should just be happy we aren't beheading them."

Your bar for equal rights is astonishingly low if it only entails not doing phisical violence to said groups, and nothing in the 14th amendment suggests that it is only interested in protecting all people from phisical harm, or imprisonment. Why do you see a need to make the definition of equal rights so narrow?
.....................................

Any broad rights endowed to us by the constitution cannot be stripped from us by state law. Federal law is the higher law. States may not break those laws when making their own. They can always go further with them, but never ignore or simply adhere to a lesser standard. Surely, you aren't going to so flippantly brush off the first and second amendments in this way? If a state decided freedom of speech is great nationally, but "just isn't for us", are you suggesting that it is within a simple majority's power to strip that of all a state's citizenry?

......

I think it's been brought up here before, but one of the reasons we have a republic and a bill of rights is that our founding fathers were concerned not only about a tyrannical minority, but the tyranny of the majority as well. There are some inalianable rights, one of which is supposedly, liberty.

.................

Rap, what do you mean the courts "tried that". They did what it is their job to do. The law was brought to them for review. They found the law in violation of the constitution. The courts didn't "try" anything.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:



.................

Rap, what do you mean the courts "tried that". They did what it is their job to do. The law was brought to them for review. They found the law in violation of the constitution. The courts didn't "try" anything.




No, the courts thwarted the will of the people, by making law from the bench, when they overturned the ban on gay marriages, 4-3. That then forced the issue to be put into the California Constitution. which had to get the required # of signatures, then pass a state wide vote.

Twice now, gay marriage has been voted, and finally, the will of the people has been heard.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:12 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Any broad rights endowed to us by the constitution cannot be stripped from us by state law. Federal law is the higher law.


I'm sorry, your statement is not entirely correct.

Actually State Law was traditionally seperate and distinct so under the original system a right granted by the Federal Constitution could be limited by a State Constitution.

For example, the right to a lawyer was a Federal right, but not always a State right.

Now don't go blowing Gideon's Trumpet at me (good movie), let me explain.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendement had the funny effect of suddenly making the Courts realize that the Bill of Rights ought not apply differently in different states, so they decided to make things more uniform. This became Incorporation Doctrine, a right granted under the Bill of Rights must be incorporated under the 14th Amendment BEFORE it applies to State laws. This is done on a case by case basis throughout much of the last Century.

So then we have our friend Gideon (Henry Fonda) charged with theft. He asked for a lawyer and was denied.

"The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.

GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.

The case was tried, he was found guilty, and he was sentenced. So he sues Mr. Wainright, who was head of Florida's correction system. He won because the US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that the 14th Amendment incorporated the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and appliied to the states.

Since then some, but not all of the rights express or implied by the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, some have been specifically NOT incorporated.

So if your State decides to quarter the National Guard at your house...your screwed...unless the President calls them into Federal service.

I note for the record that a person is entitled to counsel...not good counsel. So if your lawyer falls asleep during your Texas murder trial...you might want to nudge him yourself cause the Court is not required to do it for you.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:23 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

The voice of the citizenship does't trump the 14th amendment


Nor any amendment. Nor the 7 articles of the Constitution. We agree. However, we do not agree on how the 14th applies to prop 8. You believe it does. I do not. I will return to this in a moment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Your bar for equal rights is astonishingly low if it only entails not doing phisical violence to said groups. Why do you see a need to make the definition of equal rights so narrow?


Citizens must pursue happiness in a manner that does not violate the rights of other citizens. Violence is only 1 way to violate another persons rights. My definition of equal rights is equal to that of Thomas Jefferson's, and it's anything but narrow.

Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Any broad rights endowed to us by the constitution cannot be stripped from us by state law. Federal law is the higher law. States may not break those laws when making their own.
There are some inalianable rights, one of which is supposedly, liberty.


You propose therefore that a person has an inalianable right to join into union with whomever they choose? Sure. We agree.

You propose that all states have a mandate by the constitution to recoginize formally all marrages? No. That is not true. We do not agree. The states have the right of self-governance. Period. 3 states in our union have decided to recoginize homosexual marriage: Vermont, Conn, and Mass. 47 states have not done this. This is right. If citizens in 47 states wish for a different governance then they shall speak at the voting booth. If the citizens of the other three wish a reversal, they likewise can speak.

You seem quite focused on the 14th amendment. I said I'd return to that text, and now I shall. The 14th reads in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I shall break that down into 3 parts and explain it:

1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States
In plain speak this means that no state can trump the rights listed in the constitution. It's sad that it was needed because one should simply assume it, but it was a product of its time and was aimed at the southern states. It's more-or-less a warning to abide by the document "or else". If you're trying to use this to make your case, you cannot because the subject of prop 8 is not an item to be found in any of the 27 amendments nor the constitution.

2. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This is the beating heart to us libertarians. If there is ever an amendment line item I repeat, it's this one. Strictly speaking it forbids the government from stripping your rights without due process. Therefore you cannot forfit liberty (go to jail) without due process (a trial). Your life cannot be taken (gas chamber) without a similar process. Property cannot be anexed from you without due process (immenant domain & you must be paid fair market value) Again, to associate this with prop 8 is impossible. You'd argue that liberty is being taken perhaps, but I argue that it's being preserved since the government is not keeping 2 people apart.

3. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
This final portion is a guarantee of fair treatment. The law shall not apply to one person but not another. Also, nobody should fear that the government will unfairly fail to protect them or unfairly target them. This is an arguement used in the prop 8 debates and it's misapplied. I again tell you, if gays were being killed for being gay, or if they were denied the right to co-habitate, or kept apart in any way...then I'd be on your side. I'd be honored to fight to attain those rights. But this is not the issue. I'm sorry but it just isn't.

Look, I know you're pissed. It sucks to win at something then watch that victory retracted. I get it. I'm not some cold hearted hetrosexual guy. I've been appalled at abuses rendered on homosexuals. The most recient I know of was a man who was denied the right to be present during the death of his partner because he wasn't a relative or spouse. That was BS and laws can be amended to fix it. But I cannot condone tossing the fundenmental right of state self-governance out the window on this one issue. There are many issues. Thousands. If you reverse the 10th amendment to satisify your desires on prop 8, you'll fracture the union given time.

It's been 143 years since our last Unification war. I don't want another.


Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 12:39 PM

WHOZIT


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L4284496.htm Tell them about the 14th amendment.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 1:06 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


Heh, I knew that 'we' I used early on might throw people off. Actually I'm straight. I do live in the california bay area, so I know plenty of gay people, and have had I suppose. some pretty liberal schooling.
..........

thanks for that synopses Hero, that sounds on the surface at least, like that may just be how it is.

Is your suggestion that any snub of the bill of rights by the staes is all perfectly legal because their own laws have yet to be updated,but that said update could be mandated by a court if a case were brought before a federal judge?

Or am I not quite understanding?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 1:08 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
"my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody"



WTF???

I'm agreeing with your overall point Righteous, but, was this part meant to be a joke?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 1:12 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Is your suggestion that any snub of the bill of rights by the staes is all perfectly legal because their own laws have yet to be updated



States write stupid laws all the time. So do counties and cities. That's why we have a supreme court, to set things straight when local laws violate the Federal Constitution.

The trouble these days is we no longer have impartial judges. If the system were to work correctly we'd have 9 Justices that each possessed the Wisdom of Solomon. We do not. Every 5-4 court decision proves it.

My point above is that prop 8 is a california state issue that should be fought on the state level. You contend that it is a federal issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 4, 2008 1:38 PM

RIGHTEOUS9



I dont' know Sergeant,

I mean, I've never felt sure about the seatbelt law, and I"m but there is a known cost to society and everybody for doing some things. It certainly wasn't the central argument of my post, and I did say things could be parsed as a matter of one freedom versus another.

I think that seatbelts might be one that could be argued to me convincingly, if not for the example I made up on the fly..........
..............

BlueSunCompanyMan, what is the highest level of rights that should be enforced by the Federal government. Give me some guideline as to where you draw the line at which rights are inalienable, and which ones can be decided at the state level.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 3:58 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Is your suggestion that any snub of the bill of rights by the staes is all perfectly legal because their own laws have yet to be updated,but that said update could be mandated by a court if a case were brought before a federal judge?


Thats why the Court started getting so activist in around WW2 with things like Gideon and Miranda and such. Incorporation Doctrine was being applied by the Supreme Court in many different way.

There is nothing in the law that says the States can't be even MORE protective of rights then the Federal govt. The Bill of Rights is a minimum standard. For example, the 2nd Amendment is often attacked for being vague and undefined. Ohio's gun right is far more detailed and leaves a lot of the ambiguity out. So if someone banned guns in another state and that was found to be Constitutional, the Ohio Constitution would protect Ohio citizens from a similar law being passed in Ohio.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 6:27 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
I think that seatbelts might be one that could be argued to me convincingly, if not for the example I made up on the fly..........
..............


I note for the record that Seat Belt Laws are entirely Constitutional.

There is no Constitutional right to drive. How many times have you heard that driving is not a right...its a privilage?

States can license you to drive and set conditions on having a license and on safe operation of vehicles. That means your vehicle must be in good condition, be operated at a safe speed and with reasonable control, it must be registered, you must have insurence, AND you must wear a seatbelt.

The Constitution does not prohibit any of those rules and the State's interest is varied and includes things like safety, public order, commerce, etc.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 6:38 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Listen to Hero. He's the lawyer. While I'm a libertarian philosopher, he knows the law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 6:42 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?



Answer: There is no liberty at stake either way. The freedom of allowing 2 people to be together, regardless of sexual preference, should be the only issue. There is not 1 state in the 50 that denies liberty in this way. There are, however, locations in the broader world where you will be beheaded for being gay. In those places, you have a case.

The issue on this thread is the formal recognition of the state of California over who is "married". This is then related to how a couple can file taxes or pursue insurance.

It is therefore about money.

The two of you are arguing above about what the constitution means in relation to this issue...14th amendment....9th amendment....blah blah blah. There is only 1 amendment that applies on the federal level:

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is why Prop 8 is a STATES ISSUE. And California wisely chose to deal with it in the form of a refrendum. Citizens voted. It's honestly the purest form of democracy out there, a straight vote tally. The other action would be to have debated it on the floor of the California General Assembly, the process of a Republic.

The sad thing that goes unreported is that the gay political forces in Cali were certain prop 8 would go their way, representing a final irreversable victory. But then the unexpected happened: A larger community of O supporters spoke. Now losers cry foul.

This is a republic, a union of states. There is no federal law preventing someone from moving to Vermont. Just icy cold weather and the loss of lazy days in San Fransico.





Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.



Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain




“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 6:49 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.



And I'm sorry to disagree and continue to maintain it's a states issue. Since nobody is keeping anyone apart from anyone else, no civil rights have been violated. You cannot compare this to, say, Brown vs The Board of Education where african american children were being denied basic rights to an equal education. They are not the same things.

Disagree all you want, but this will end up in a California court and I will be proven right. I'm sorry but this is just the way it is.

Proper action of the homosexual community in Cali is to work towards General Assembly Debate and law passage. This is the way a republic works. If it proves to be a failure, it'll be because representatives vote per the opinions of their constitutes. Again, how a republic works. The opinion of a gay man in San Fransisco is just as valid as that of a Morman living in an East California Desert town.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


To be exact:

The original initiative was passed by popular vote but determined to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

The second initiative (Prop 8) was an initiative to change the Constitution. However, changes to the state constitution can only by made by a 2/3 vote of the legislature AND passage by popular vote. A simple majority by popular vote is not sufficient. That is the basis of the challenge.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:12 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


really?

then why is this an issue at all?

I thought it was pretty wacky that Cali only needed a simple majority to change its contitution.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:14 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.



And I'm sorry to disagree and continue to maintain it's a states issue. Since nobody is keeping anyone apart from anyone else, no civil rights have been violated. You cannot compare this to, say, Brown vs The Board of Education where african american children were being denied basic rights to an equal education. They are not the same things.

Disagree all you want, but this will end up in a California court and I will be proven right. I'm sorry but this is just the way it is.

Proper action of the homosexual community in Cali is to work towards General Assembly Debate and law passage. This is the way a republic works. If it proves to be a failure, it'll be because representatives vote per the opinions of their constitutes. Again, how a republic works. The opinion of a gay man in San Fransisco is just as valid as that of a Morman living in an East California Desert town.



It is a civil rights issue. Gay people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They are being treated differently. They are being denied the right to be married - something that is available to heterosexuals. The response, by those that oppose Gay marriage, that Gays can have a civil union is another form of "separate but equal".

Human beings have the right to be treated equal in all things, we can not pick and choose. Either we are a country of equal rights or we aren't.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain




“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"then why is this an issue at all?"

B/c the court has to rule on the constitutionality of the constitutional amendment !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:24 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



But, as Hero says has to happen, once the 14th amendment is recognized to protect gay marriage so long as there are laws that recognize straight marriage, then the 14th amendment applies, Bluesuncompanyman, and you have yet to tell us where you think the bar is set on equal rights. Don't equal rights mean equal? You keep saying "those things were out of line, violence is out of line, but this isn't."

Why do you think that the level of discrimination matters? It doesn't. The 14th amendment lays it down that laws cannot discriminate in any way. Recognizing marriage for some people means you have to recognize it for all.

............

Hero, you're right about driving. I had forgotten about that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:25 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




but doesn't taht mean the amendment never passed? It didn't do what it needed to to actually become an amendment?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


But yes, I too see it as a civil rights issue.

In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a "basic right" in "the pursuit of happiness" (quotes from their ruling). It seems to apply to same sex marriage as much as it applies to miscegenation laws.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:40 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Bluesuncompanyman, you have yet to tell us where you think the bar is set on equal rights. Don't equal rights mean equal? You keep saying "those things were out of line, violence is out of line, but this isn't."



I've never been describing the bar height. That's what you keep trying to do in post after post, using examples like: "This violation is clearly wrong...but this lesser one over here...well that's ok" It's like the attempt is to get me to say that one wrong thing is better than another, when in reality the discussion is comparing apples to oranges.

Apples: Gays are suffering unequal protection of the law.

Oranges: The State of California, by the 10th amendment, has the right to have an opinion.

If either you or futuremrsfillion can show me an event in california where a body of government (city, county, or state) passed a law keeping gays apart OR enforced a restriction to keep gays apart, then I shall side with you. Until then, I must defend the right of calfornia to Self-govern. I defend California IN THE SAME WAY I defend Vermont to govern in the opposite.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:49 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




I dont need to find that to make my point. You are not showing me how your defininition of what discrimination is, reconciles with the 14th amendment. According to the 14th amendment, any unequal treatment is discrimination, and unlawful. Thus saying, "you two can get married, but you two can't" is crossing that line.

......

the state of California has the right to have an opinion that doesn't contradict a Civil Right.

They aren't apples and oranges, because the law we're talking about directly applies to equal protection under the law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:52 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

I dont need to find that to make my point. You are not showing me how your defininition of what discrimination is, reconciles with the 14th amendment. According to the 14th amendment, any unequal treatment is discrimination, and unlawful. Thus saying, "you two can get married, but you two can't" is crossing that line.



And in an identical fashion you have failed to prove that the State of California has the right not to self govern.

I told you: Apples and Oranges.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 8:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"And in an identical fashion you have failed to prove that the State of California has the right not to self govern."

Virginia apparently DIDN'T have the right to self-govern with its state anti-miscegenation* laws when the US Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v Virginia.


* If you don't know what that means, anti-miscegenation laws forbade people of different 'races' from marrying.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:15 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Virginia apparently DIDN'T have the right to self-govern with its state anti-miscegenation* laws when the US Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v Virginia.



*Sigh*


OK. Please try not to stir sediment into the water to cloud things. All that statement did was MAKE my case stronger.

I cited Brown vs Board as an example of how a state's attempt to violate the civil rights of Africian Americans was a VALID landmark case. In that case Brown v Board overturned the previous (and vile) Plessy v. Ferguson. Loving v. Virginia overturned in a similar manner Pace v. Alabama, and also declared unconstitutional Virginia's idiotic Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

If california passed a law forbidding homosexuals from co-habitating, I have no doubt there would be similar landmark cases.

So to review:
1954---Brown v. Board: Corrected Civil Rights Violations.
1967---Loving v. Virginia: Corrected Civil Rights Violations
2008---BSCM v. Rue and Righteous9 and Futuremrsfillion: No civil rights are violated.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Loving v. Virginia overturned in a similar manner Pace v. Alabama ..." and made a ruling that MARRIAGE IS A BASIC RIGHT in THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How does that not apply ? Duh.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:25 AM

RIGHTEOUS9





What is the distinction you are making between gay marriage and interracial marriage? Preventing one or the other is discriminatory.

How are you parsing the law so that it is appropriate for one and not the other?

You keep saying they're different, but not how they are different.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:32 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Virginia apparently DIDN'T have the right to self-govern with its state anti-miscegenation* laws when the US Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v Virginia.



*Sigh*


OK. Please try not to stir sediment into the water to cloud things. All that statement did was MAKE my case stronger.

I cited Brown vs Board as an example of how a state's attempt to violate the civil rights of Africian Americans was a VALID landmark case. In that case Brown v Board overturned the previous (and vile) Plessy v. Ferguson. Loving v. Virginia overturned in a similar manner Pace v. Alabama, and also declared unconstitutional Virginia's idiotic Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

If california passed a law forbidding homosexuals from co-habitating, I have no doubt there would be similar landmark cases.

So to review:
1954---Brown v. Board: Corrected Civil Rights Violations.
1967---Loving v. Virginia: Corrected Civil Rights Violations
2008---BSCM v. Rue and Righteous9 and Futuremrsfillion: No civil rights are violated.






You are being deliberately obtuse. The fact that Proposition 8 eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry makes it discriminatory and unconstitutional in the United States of America. California and any other state that does not allow Gays to MARRY is/are violating their civil rights. California can self govern all it wants as long as it's laws are not discriminatory. If they passed a law or created an amendment to the states constitution making it illegal for people in wheelchairs to marry would you get the point?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain




“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:38 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Once again: To all 3 of you. California has a right to self-govern. End of story. You all act as though I have a horse in this race.

I don't. I don't care who lives with who. I don't care who marries who. If my defense of the 10th amendment is obtuse, I am sorry.

I cannot change true things nor will I agree to let 1 singular issue threaten the sovernty of states. To have things your way will force 50 states to define marrage in a singular way. 3 states will be happy. 30 or so wont care.

States like Oklahoma or Kansas will howl. That road leads to a unification war. Is that better? People who live in cities often have no idea how country-folk think or govern themselves. We are seen as "Clinging to our guns and our faiths"

Gorram it, If Mal was in this debate, he'd side with me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:07 - 2072 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:02 - 54 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL