Yeah I guess he makes too much sense in that clip huh.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Not looking good for California Prop 8
- Thread starter Splash Log
- Start date
Yeah I guess he makes too much sense in that clip huh.
dude, quit with the bigot talk ok. it's just not needed. 52% of california is not bigoted and neirther is he. this is not about individual rights. every individual here in america has the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as the next.
actually he makes very little sense. you are just too close to the situation to look at this objectively.
It is absolutely bigotry, and 52% is bigoted, and it is about individual rights. The right to marry is a fundamental right.
Trying to craft the right in a certain way to prove that a violation of rights has not occurred will not work. If you think it does, then you were probably for the miscegenation laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites, and would probably defend it by saying "Oh, well there is not violation of the fundamental right to marry because everyone still has the right to marry anyone they want of the same race."
Why don't you go read Loving v. Virginia and curb your ignorance.
I'm not gay nor am I from California. However, I am smart enough to realize that individual rights are being trampled upon, are you?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 11,622
- Reaction score
- 333
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 63
- Location
- An alternate reality.
And you're calling ME a dumb ignorant asshole?
Absolutely. If you think the Catholic Church invented marriage, then that is absurd.
And who do you think foots the bill for all of the abuse scandals in the church? That's right... the only thing the money you donate to the church feeds is horny priests.
Accusing someone of bigotry and then throwing out slews of insults and demonstrating yourself to be rabidly anti-catholic might be a bit hypocritical.
1) Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.
2) Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Due to this inconvenient reality, what gay people want is not marriage.
As previously stated, no right is denied as all men have equal rights to marry a woman and all woman have equal rights to marry a man. If no distinction should be made between man and woman, I suppose you would be in favor of eradicating "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms as that is distinguishing between man and woman.
1) Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.
2) Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Due to this inconvenient reality, what gay people want is not marriage.
As previously stated, no right is denied as all men have equal rights to marry a woman and all woman have equal rights to marry a man. If no distinction should be made between man and woman, I suppose you would be in favor of eradicating "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms as that is distinguishing between man and woman.
I am anti-little-boy abuse... if that makes me anti-catholic so be it.
Read up on your constitutional law, my friend. You are wrong and your bold assertion and belief of something that couldn't be further from the truth does not make it correct. Even prisoners cannot be denied the right to marry, since it is a fundamental right.
Oh really? Who has made this definition? What purpose does it serve?
The previous 200+ years of United States history as well as the law was just upheld, prop 8, define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
I'd hardly consider "anti-little-boy abuse" to include stating that the tithes of catholics to the church are used entirely on "feeding horny
priests."
Your arrogant tone, while being wholly ignorant, is rather amusing. I suggest you heed your own advice and brush up on Constitutional law. You'll need to look elsewhere in making an attempt to validate your argument.
I'd hardly consider "anti-little-boy abuse" to include stating that the tithes of catholics to the church are used entirely on "feeding horny
priests."
Your arrogant tone, while being wholly ignorant, is rather amusing. I suggest you heed your own advice and brush up on Constitutional law. You'll need to look elsewhere in making an attempt to validate your argument.
Why doesn't someone post the right as it appears in the constitution assuming it exists.
Yeah I guess a referendum in California will dictate Federal Constitutional Law. Do you know anything about how our government and legal system works?And I guess you are right, with the history being incapable of change... how do you square that with the whole slavery thing? With women once being treated as property? With blacks not being allowed to marry whites? With "separate but equal"?
*crickets*
And I guess you are right, with the history being incapable of change... how do you square that with the whole slavery thing? With women once being treated as property? With blacks not being allowed to marry whites? With "separate but equal"?
Yes, I'm fully aware of the Constitution and its provisions. You will not find marriage listed in the constitution as a protected right.
Proposition 8 is a state law, not federal. It does not conflict with the Constitution in any way. I feel like I'm saying 2+2 = 4, and you're screaming 2+2=5 and then acting like I'm the moron.
Since you are unfamiliar with Constitutional Law start here:
Fundamental right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Supreme Court has recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right subject to protection via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gay Marriage Bans can also be struck down as violating the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If you want to see how it will play out constitutionally if the Supreme Court ever takes a case, read the Iowa Supreme Court decision invalidating gay marriage bans.
Are you kidding me? Did you know that the U.S. Constitution is supreme over State Constitutions? If California bans gay marriage, but then the U.S. Supreme Court rules that doing so was a violation of individual liberties (due process / equal protection), and no compelling state interest existed, guess what happens...
You may be familiar with the Constitution, but are clearly not familiar with Supreme Court doctrines and how our legal system works.
Perhaps I should be more clear: Marriage between any human and any human is not a protected right. I think this should be obvious since we have laws against polygamy and incest.
The argument is really "What is the definition of marriage" which is what Prop 8, and a similar law in my state are all about. It defines it as between one man and one woman. All people are granted this right (Male-Female marriage) under equal protection.
The argument is really "What is the definition of marriage" which is what Prop 8, and a similar law in my state are all about. It defines it as between one man and one woman. All people are granted this right (Male-Female marriage) under equal protection.
State law does not supersede the Constitution, no. However, where the federal government is not granted a power, state law governs. Marriages are carried out by the states.
This is why the only way to define marriage as being between a man and woman nationwide at the federal level would be an amendment. Simply passing a law would not be constitutional as it is not an authority granted to the Federal Government.
This is why the only way to define marriage as being between a man and woman nationwide at the federal level would be an amendment. Simply passing a law would not be constitutional as it is not an authority granted to the Federal Government.
If you think the Supreme Court will rule that way, you are sadly mistaken. Polygamy and incest would meet strict scrutiny--banning gay marriage does not.
I really don't want to hear another word out of you until you read the Iowa opinion.
States carry out marriage, but I think what you are forgetting is that state action still must conform to the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Right now they can ban gay marriage all they want. My point is this: the precedents are there in such a way that when the issue reaches the Supreme Court, all laws banning marriage will inevitably be struck down.
Ah, so it's ok to restrict marriage, as long as it meets your particular definition, but when the people of a state restrict it through the a democratic process, it's not ok.
Two related adults: Not ok.
More than two people: Not ok.
People under arbitrary age of consent: Not ok
People of same sex: Not ok for most people in California, apparently ok for you.
By the way, I really could care less that you "don't want to hear another word" out of me until I read the Iowa opinion.
Edit: Posted this prior to seeing the above comment. If you believe in no restriction at all, that ground is far more solid than simply believing that gay marriage should be "added."
Two related adults: Not ok.
More than two people: Not ok.
People under arbitrary age of consent: Not ok
People of same sex: Not ok for most people in California, apparently ok for you.
By the way, I really could care less that you "don't want to hear another word" out of me until I read the Iowa opinion.
Edit: Posted this prior to seeing the above comment. If you believe in no restriction at all, that ground is far more solid than simply believing that gay marriage should be "added."
Look up the concept of strict scrutiny and how it can be overcome. I'm getting tired of teaching you constitutional law. What is the justification that the state would offer for banning gay marriage? Whatever it is, it would not be sufficient... the Iowa Supreme Court decision has shot down everything you are about to say so I am going to refer you there again to save me some time.
Last edited:
Like I said, I agree that gay marriage should not be banned, and that it is discriminatory. I do not believe it is a right guaranteed as of yet. I hope that it will be, if it were struck down tomorrow the country would be a better place, but Iowa has ruled for, CA has ruled against, and the Supreme Court has yet to, so it isn't a Right yet.
no the precedent is not there. Constitutionally marriage can and is regulated. this issue will not make it to the supreme court of the US. there is a reason this battle is being fought state by state. The federal government has no authority here.
Go read up some. The precedent is there. I will quote myself to avoid repetition, because you obviously cannot read:
If these 28 states that now define marriage as between a man and a woman violated federal law don't you think that a court would have listened to the case by now? right now the next plan of attack in california is to have the states constitution re-amended. the reason for that is that they do not have a course to take this to the federal level. they can not challenge this in a federal court. if they could they would be. they aren't. no federal judge will see this case for a reason. he has no authority to. proposition 8 did not violate the 14th amendment of the US constitution. your argument is flawed.
Are you retarded? Federal judges don't have the authority to hear cases concerning violations of the Constitution? Did you really just assert that?
Nothing is violated until a case challenges it. The gays are not stupid. If you recall the strategy of Marshall that ultimately resulted in the the overturning Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education, the strategy to challenge must be approached carefully and brought only when the issue is ripe for success. Brown didn't happen overnight. When a couple more of Justices die, I guarantee that you will see a ruling.
The ability to marry the person that you love.
