Poop gate has been overpooped

[213]

Government should stay out of my business religiously speaking? check

Government should stay out of my business in reference to what goes on in my bedroom between consenting adults? check

...and yet here we are.

The only problems with making gay marriage legal and all normalized should be: "We need to sit down and all agree on the tax laws."

Wouldn't all of this would be so much easier to get a handle on if our tax laws were not based on christianity, and the christian view of marriage and how every couple should be rewarded for making babies.

My wife and I have 3 children, and our tax returns are ridiculous compared to what we'd get when we were legally single. I actually feel bad for friends who don't have kids come tax season, it's outright robbery. These laws are pretty much in-your-face christian-based bigotry.

 

[Larkin]

I am aware of that, yes. I was being glib for the sake of simplicity.

Like I care?

I am also aware that the research reduces Elmer's arguments against same-sex marriage marriage/homosexuality to an unbackable barrage of personal opinion, which in my opinion only needs to be posted once, and explained once.

You think it just breaks his down to personal opinion?

So you are saying that your problem is that the people with only personal opinion have stopped endlessly repeating themselves?

Yeah, that isn't going on in here.

Or is your problem that when the people who like to discuss politics with actual backing of their points and arguments began massing in this discussion all of the people who don't have backing of their points and arguments, thus revealing those points and arguments, to be mere opinion, either bogged off or began posting... crap?

Who has backing again?

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

It really is...

Nope, it's not even close.

 

[Adelheid]

write it in Word first

Can't: Needs activating and I don't have a home connection.
Ditto for windows too, but Idont mind re-installing every month.

that's the worst excuse I have ever heard for anything.

Now read it properly.

In fact telling 7 million people that their vote doesn't matter is completely constitutional. It's one of the things that makes the document so effective. It was crafted to handle exactly this kind of situation. There are checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of the minority.

However, I find it strange that nobody ever mentions the thing that I find the most disturbing about this whole affair. This wasn't just a law. It was a constitutional amendment. The ability to amend the constitution is one of the people's ultimate tools to keep the government in line. The whole reason this was passed as an amendment was because the people didn't like the decisions the court was rendering. Now the courts are telling us that they can trump even that. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that when we get into the whole state constitution vs federal constitutional, but I still find the whole turn of events disturbing.


There's a few other arguments I've seen used in support of Proposition 8 that I'd like to clarify as well. For instance, it seems to me that some people are arguing that marriage is not a right. I might have agreed with you at one time, but I no longer feel that way. It truly is essential to the human race, and those that have the ability to be married should do so. This does not change the fact however that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. In my view gay marriage is diametrically opposed to everything I believe a marriage to be. They simply aren't the same thing, and they should not be treated as such under the law.

Marriage as a right: Yup. Even if only to contractually bind your partner to fidelity.

What do you believe a marriage should be?
What if homosexuals didn't get married, but had civil unions instead?
What is your opinion on Atheists getting married?

Government should stay out of my business religiously speaking? check

Government should stay out of my business in reference to what goes on in my bedroom between consenting adults? check

...and yet here we are.

The only problems with making gay marriage legal and all normalized should be: "We need to sit down and all agree on the tax laws."

Wouldn't all of this would be so much easier to get a handle on if our tax laws were not based on christianity, and the christian view of marriage and how every couple should be rewarded for making babies.

My wife and I have 3 children, and our tax returns are ridiculous compared to what we'd get when we were legally single. I actually feel bad for friends who don't have kids come tax season, it's outright robbery. These laws are pretty much in-your-face christian-based bigotry.

People getting rewarded for having children is dumb.
People getting extra social-security benefits for having children is dumber.
If you can't afford them, don't have them. Why should the taxpayer cover you? Use a condom. Shut your legs. Say no. Realise that using sex as a tool only makes people like your vagina and not you.
....grrr..... mumble... grrr.....

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Nope, it's not even close.

So where3 is the specific line in the Constitution or it's amendments that specifically handles this case? That's right there isn't one, therefore it is ambiguous.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

So where3 is the specific line in the Constitution or it's amendments that specifically handles this case? That's right there isn't one, therefore it is ambiguous.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

 

[Sir_Brizz]

So how is that not ambiguous in this case?

 

[Crotale]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

Brizz is correct. The ambiguity in the Constitution is on purpose. The Framers knew they could not have foreseen and determined cause and effect of future issues, so they worded the Constitution to be ambiguous with the intent it would be seen more as inclusive than exclusive when it comes to individual rights. However, the highlighted part of the passage does not necessarily apply to legal proceedings; it also speaks to law of the land. In this case, the Federal law of the land had no specific mention of allowance of gays to marry. California voters, by a majority (simple or otherwise, it was enough to get Prop 8 passed) voted to enact Prop 8, thus modifying their state Constitution (law of their land).

You can shake your fists, stomp your feet and scream "ambiguity schmambiguity" all day long, but that ambiguity is what allowed this decision to be reached last week.

The last part of that passage is what the lawyers fighting to overturn Prop 8 used as their argument.

I have more to say but am short on time at the moment, so I will try to pick this up later.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

 

[Capt.Toilet]

 

[kiff]

gee Liz, all you can do is post mocking pics when you can't win the debate?

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

gee Liz, all you can do is post mocking pics when you can't win the debate?

Wow, lame attempt to turn my own words on me. You win!

Spoiler

P.S. Who's debating? I'm trolling!

.

 

[kiff]

lol... well I must admit it's hard to stop looking at them... err the pic

 

[pine]

gee Liz, all you can do is post mocking pics when you can't win the debate?

Yeah, because you can really "win" debates on the internet. Especially when you show somebody the evidence in the fourteenth amendment right to their face and they pretend not to understand what it means.

 

[kiff]

oh, like how it means that all races should have equal treatment under the law and has nothing to do with sexuality?

edit: but if it does apply to gays, because they're people, it doesn't have to apply to polygamists, because they're not people, right? or wait, listen to the left all of a sudden make some moral arguments...

or how the babies of people here legally on vacation don't become citizens, but illegals do?

yea, you're right

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Yeah, because you can really "win" debates on the internet. Especially when you show somebody the evidence in the fourteenth amendment right to their face and they pretend not to understand what it means.

What evidence?

If you take the words there at face value you could just about turn your nose up at any criminal violation that exists in our country today. The Constitution hardly ever defines anything to be strictly illegal (not that it doesn't but it does it rarely) so almost every state law in our country could be deemed unconstitutional due to the ambiguity present within the U.S. Constitution.

That's why this ruling could have gone either way. The judge had use his own judgment to determine whether the text of the 14th amendment SHOULD apply, which is why this will keep going on to the Supreme Court for a decision because nobody is going to let it lie on the judgment of a single person, particularly when that person's motivations can certainly be questioned (in this case).

That's not to say that his decision was necessarily wrong, though. I would like to point out, however, that Proposition 8 was not an anti-homosexuality measure, but an anti-gay marriage measure, something that is not "protected by the laws of the land" (i.e. nobody is guaranteed the right to marry, not even straight people). If you can't figure out the difference between those two things, I think it's time to turn in your MENSA hat.

 

[BITE_ME]

The more gay people on this planet, makes for more women that I can nail

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

unless they're gay women

 

[Crotale]

unless they're lesbians

Fixed.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

Read much?

The last part of that passage is what the lawyers fighting to overturn Prop 8 used as their argument.

But as Brizz said, the passage is ambiguous enough, re: open to further interpretation, that the decision could have gone and still may go the other way when all is said and done. We will have to wait and see how it plays out if I does indeed go to the SCOTUS.

 

[BITE_ME]

Gay women are fuggly.
Except the Big titted blond that wanted me to give her money, after she showed me her titties.

Dam, she was a hot lesbian.