About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

quote:

---

What we have...which is a Constitutional Republic.

---

Which is what the people of California exercised when they amended thier constitution with Proposition 8.Although it seems as if the majority DID decide, for the consitution on this one.

Well...actually...no bubble was burst because all you really said is that you disagree with me. Then you go on to say something irrelevant to what i said and...then ask me if i get it. I...will...say...you have a unique way of responding.Marrige is something that is upto the states, not the Federal government...so...your...US constitution stance is rather irrelevant, you see? FO, voters...in a STATEwide...referendum cannot break an amendment specifically designated for the FEDERAL government. The 9th may propect from a national amendment like prop 8, but on a STATE level, the 9th does not apply, as this...is...a...STATE issue.Do you get it now FO?

the 9th...er...uh...the...14th...uh...like what subbie said
keep moving those goal posts you already proved to me you haven't a clue what you are talking about. kinda like how i wish i had a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v. Vriginia as if it even applies to this at all.
the lovings were convicted of violating a law that stated only whites can marry whites, and challenged it. I dont even see how a case will be brought up against prop 8. the scenarios aren't even remotely close. The lovings left the state to get married and came back, then they were arrested and charged with a felony. So two homosexuals leave CA and go to Taxachussets and get married, will they get arrested when they return to CA? no, thier marriage will just not be accepted. its over folks. Just so you know...the 14th amendment is BS. It was passed in states that where under military occupation and under duress. After The War of Northern Aggression, the conquered CSA was required to "rejoin" the Union, but in order to do so they had to agree to pass the 14th amendment. it was a BS catch 22. there was nothing fair or free about it, the 14th was brought in on lies and punishment. you will never hear me use it as a support for anything, because its wrong, and contrary to the original idea of what this country is. 1. Its not up to SCOTUS.
2. cases are brought up to SCOTUS, not amendments to State constitutions
3. California is not the only state that has an amendment like this.
4. The wording of Prop 8 is not discriminatory, it simply states what is. SCOTUS is going to have trouble pointing out discrimination where none exists
5. SCOTUS needs to tread carefully when dealing with state constitutions, for contract of statehood reasons, SCOTUS realizes this, and will probably work to keep the union together.I think its hilarious Barack Obama got all these blacks to go out and vote, and then those same people were key in passing prop 8, the liberals totally F'ed themselves on that one.

It does no such thing it only clearly states what a marriage is in California. You can’t really take a way something that wasn’t there in the 1st place. Yet in the same link it clearly states 70% of black voted for prop 8. are you fond of sources that contradict each other? You found it written on the internets, it must be true. If you understand anything about the reconstruction south you know that it was a mockery of liberty. It was a fake puppet government, created by the north. The amendments and laws passed between Presidents Lincoln and Hayes, are not representative of how the southern constituents were. If you cant see the BS then you re blind or you are not looking.Basically the north conquered, then used the soldiers who were there to, to write new laws, and ratify that BS amendment, all while refusing to allow the southern leadership to do so.You try to cop-out and tell me to get over something that was one hundred and fifty years ago then go in the same post to show that it was finally ratified by everyone five years ago. Why the contradiction? The irony of your posts, is comedy at its finest. Just as silly as your argument to an amendment in the California State Constitution. So rather than addressing the issue, you find it more productive to act like a five-year old? Keep practicing your strawman, its getting better. Prop 8 passed . let it go. You don’t answer anything either. You talk of a constitutional republic, and you don’t even know what amendments you are talking about. You ask question and when answered you claim they aren’t. You say others are acting immature and then act immature in the same post. You say learn English, and then make grammar errors in the same post.Keep up the good work.Subbie, stick around you gave a great response and its going to take me a bit to respond, FO is to funny i couldn't resist myself.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot subbie

Chris,
I didn't start the grammar game, FO did. I also did not start the name calling and the personal attacks, but i have been on this site long enough to realize that only leftists and people from the UK are alowed to ignore the rules, and since im american and conservative here i am just a target.calling me out on internets, you cant be serious. i'll take it as a joke, like most of your posts, they are funny. I iz 2 l33t 4 u, n00b. we have Dorthy, Toto, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, who are we missing? Oh yeah thanks Kuresu, the Strawman! lulz
not only a right but an unalienable right. taken from english common law, taken from the Magna Carta (1215ce). Come on "History Major" you can do better than that. Unless you mean before the revolution as in way back in the year 1214? Actually the Bill of Rights of 1689 was an act of the British Parliament that covered freedom of speech (we got most of our ideas from the british, and from already existing british laws, but you study history so i guess you know this). Also in 1689 the Bill of rights allowed for the right to bear arms (if you were a protestant). gays can still get married the way polygamists do, it just wont be legal, but then neither is polygamy. The Pedophiles, and the Polygamists are on your side now.
marry who you want as many times as you want no matter what their age is. yeah freedom!(sarcasm)

yes and no. I'll discuss with Kuresu and Subbie because they present themselves well on here, provide links, sources, and a clear position, you on the other hand are in the Rrhain category, of "it's not worth my time to respond to them" kind of poster. get your own ideas, stop copy and pasting things you read on msn/cnn, and then acting like Kuresu's and Subbie's puppy dog following their great posts with your lame chiming in on "yeah what have you got to say about what we are saying?" crap. They are asking great questions. you are are just chiming in.how about this, we just ignore each other.Kuresu and Subbie, I look forward to your future posts. I think we are really not arguing much on this one. I just wanted to say the the blacks who came in to vote for obama helped to pass prop 8. there are many key factors and this was one of them, you may have misunderstood me a little, and taken me a little out of context. I dont doubt religion was a big factor either, or age for that matter, but race was also a factor, and more blacks voted in this election than in previous ones. even your .PDF, that you so graciously linked, stated at the bottom of the second page in the race category that whites were 50-50 and non-whites were 57-43 in favor, while older people were 56-44 in favour (and although it's one point, it's still less of a factor than race was). I think the data doesn't refute either one of our positions. now you said age in the begining and now you are saying age, income and religion. so now im changing to race, religion and education. this is really a silly arguement for both of us to continue, but i will if you want to.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Holy Crap, I go on vacation for 5 days (BTW - Arizona is beautiful this time of year), and all of a sudden im dodging stuff and refusing to answer. take a chill pill, this site is not on my 10 things I have to do everyday list, maybe this means more to some people, maybe they love to come here and hate. I don't; this is a casual thing for me, sorry to lead you on d00d! Sounds to me as if you dont really even want me to respond. there was alot of stuff you were saying about the loving case (post #141), and interracial marriage, almost as if that's what we were talking about. All I said was that the Loving case was not related to prop 8. then you go on to explain the loving case and the 14th amendment, which is fine but you never really answered or refuted what i said. I am not argueing what you said, but it was a red herring. It was a particlarly long and well written red herring with much detail, but it did nothing to stay on topic (a classic well written red herring technique, i must say it was impressive though).reguarding the 14th amendment.
I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government. it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.
BTW what did Coleman v. Miller have to do with what I was saying? thanks for the link and the information, but the BS is in the set up, not the time required for ratification.

rofl.I realize there is no real sarcasm in text and it is hard to read, so i try not to use any, but when i imagine you in person, i can't possibly think you are being serious very often.1. wtf does the snarky comment about the bible have to do with anything? it is irrelevant to any of this (and im catholic, so i have no idea what the bible says).2. sry about the links, but im not quoting many people when i make a post, i can think for myself, thanks. besides, this site is extremely casual to me, if i cant find it in a 5min google search im done, which means you can probably find it in a 5min google search as well.3. i NEVER start with the jabs and the ad hominem, but i will return fire, ALWAYS. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're seriously calling the Federal Government a tyranny because it won't let the State governments be tyrannies ?

---

yes.

quote:

---

Why exactly do you consider the freedom of the State governments so much more important than the freedom of individual citizens ?

---

I don't nor did I state that.
what confused you so much?

oh woe is me that you may think bad things of me, call me names and then call me a name caller when i retaliate. though petulance is on you not me, if you are annoyed by someone its not thier fault you are annoyed.the 13th was pretty much a moot point in the CSA, or what had become for the CSA by that time. The slaves of the CSA were freed by the emacipation proclamation on paper, and with union troops, when they got to them. the 13th amendment was used to free the slaves of the slave states that did not succeed from the union (in Missouri, New Jersey, Delaware, and Kentucky). Maryland had already banned slavery on its own before the 13th. the 13th while one of the reconstruction amendments, had litle effect, as it was stating something that was already being practised in the south. so in reality the 13th "by my logic" so conviently stated by some one other than myself (Kuresu), doesn't fit into the formula.the 14th and 15th do fit. the 15th is bogus too.13th valid
14th invalid
15th invalidcan we get back to prop. 8, or do you like to thread jack?

and when the federal government is a tyranny, over the state government to prevent a tyranny in one place with a larger tyranny in every place, then everyone in everystate is not free from tyranny. we can play the circular reasoning game all day long, but I still wonder what your point is?do you have any examples relative to what we are debating here?

sorry to break it too you but this aint academia. Seems similar to your next paragragh Sources? How about credentials? If we have real experts, are they experts because you say so, or is there some evidence?Furthermore this is not a scientific debate, this is not a creationist debate, this is a political debate. Even if all that is true, it’s just more crap.But hey I don’t need evidence and sources I can just agree with the experts here, listed above, and piggyback/puppydog my way around this site [sarcasm]. Are you seriously being serious? There you are again brining up jesus and the bible again. This is off topic, (I guess this answers my thread jacking question), completely irrelevant, and BS from a supposed atheist.Quit drawing straws and interjecting irrelevant off topic stuff. You don’t need a straw to drink that kool-aid. Well I answered this question and already and you refused to listen to my answer. If you want to play that game there is not much more for me to tell you. Roflmfao!!!!
I love this site, you guys are the best comedy on the internet.
Well subbie all I have to say to you is Ditto. You don’t like what I have to say, and are pissed I called you on your red herring, so you are going to pretend, I said something else. You can be that way if you want to. Meaningful discussion? LOL, as if you provided any yourself.PWND!