|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: No. The bigot says, "I can, but you can't." The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you." Does the phrase "double standard" not mean anything to you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's in love with someone outside the faith and wants to marry the next door neighbor's daughter. At any rate, this doesn't answer the question. Why are the rights of a person who has reached the age of majority and is an independent citizen dependent upon what the parents feel? Not on any actual change in their lives...simply their feelings that their child isn't the person they had envisioned? The child isn't different. The child hasn't changed. The only difference is that now they know something they didn't know before. So why does their squick factor get to trump his rights?
quote: Huh? Since when did recognizing bigotry in others require being a jerk to them?
quote: Multiple places. On a trivial level, the First Amendment allows me to speak my mind. Doing something about it is a different matter, of course. As I said, it's a trivial level. And it goes both ways. Just as I am perfectly free to point out her bigotry (though why on earth I would do so unbidden and in a completely obnoxious manner is only answerable by the deep recess of wherever it was you pulled this strawman), she is free to respond in kind. But again, doing something about it is another thing. The bigot says, "I can, but you can't." The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you." Where do I get the right? Logic, compassion, empathy, etc. If the Mr. and Mrs. want it for themselves, then it is immoral for them to deny it to their children. I note the assumption you have made that I am gay. Is there a particular reason you have ascribed a sexual orientation to me? I know I haven't mentioned it. And note, I am still not mentioning it even now. Rest assured that you don't know me from Adam and such assumptions you make are simply that. Please respond to what I actually say and not what you wish I would have said. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one trying to say that straights deserve special rights. Since it is long-settled law that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, it is your burden to explain why, in the case of marriage, the majority gets to trample on the rights of the minority.
quote: Huh? You mean all those pages of court decisions I've transcribed were actually written by me? And here I thought I was quoting the justices of the California Supreme Court. You did read their decision, yes?
quote: Nice try, but that's my argument to you. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the Loving v. Virginia decision that marriage is a fundamental right. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the many California cases that had the courts declaring marriage to be a fundamental right. You're the one saying that there are citizens who are to be prevented from exercising this fundamental right. Simply because you get a funny feeling in your tummy.
quote: Why not? Nobody is confused when someone says that two people of the same sex have been "married." Marriage is a fundamental right. What is your justification for denying this fundamental right to certain citizens? Remember, neither the Loving v. Virginia case nor the Perez case established a right to "interracial marriage." After all, the definition of "marriage" specifically required the people to be of the same race. No, those cases indicated that the right of "marriage" is inherent to all. The Pledge ends, "liberty and justice for all." What part of "for all" are you having trouble with? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Over 400 posts and you haven't put forward a single hint of this evidence you claim to have despite my repeated direct requests for you to do so: How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Incorrect. As Loving v. Virginia pointed out, marriage is a fundamental right. Did you not read any of the CSC decision? They go on and on about how marriage is a fundamental right.
As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why ), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish ” with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life ” an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own ” and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family ” constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society. What part of "this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution" are you having trouble understanding? As the Loving v. Virginia case stated:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. What part of "vital person rights" are you having trouble understanding? Then there's Skinnder v. Oklahoma that called marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man."
quote: Indeed. You seem to be intimating that there is something wrong with that. Both are human.Both are citizens. Both routinely have their fundamental rights denied. quote: Indeed. It is always stupid to deny people their rights. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: What are we, twelve? Hint: You don't have a right to an audience for your bodily eliminations. The way we have arranged the bathroom isn't about you. Actually, there is some discrimination involved. Because women's rooms are stalls while men's rooms combine stalls and urinals, it means that the women's room typically cannot service as many people at a time as the men's room.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Incorrect. As many court cases have shown, and have been quoted here, marriage is a fundamental right. You did read the CSC decision, yes?
quote: The Constitution says differently. Are you saying that when the Loving v. Virginia case declared marriage to be a fundamental right, that was the wrong thing to do?
quote: But gay people can't get married despite marriage being a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. How do you reconcile that?
quote: Right...because humans are the same thing as a force and a tree. You seem to be saying that gay people aren't actually people, that they aren't citizens. How else to explain your continued insistence that fundamental rights don't apply to them? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Longtime couple to kick off gay marriage in Calif.
quote: Hoot, I'm sure these two have been together for 5 decades just to piss you off. How many times have you been married? Edited by Taz, : No reason given. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
David Icke  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Where do you stand on rimming within same sex marriages?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dawkinsisNOTGod  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 33 From: Lashville, Tennessee Joined: |
Im not a bigot, but its adam and eve, not trevor steven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Father Ted  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 23 Joined: |
Homophobia is a disgustion perversion if 2 sausage jockeys wish to rumble around there rusty sjeriffs badges who am I to stop them. I've taken Mrs Ted up the Oxo Tower on may occasions, a lovely tight fit that I'd highly recommend
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ickes Love Child  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Havent we all Father
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Father Ted  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 23 Joined: |
Yeah but at least I lasted longer than 10 seconds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
David Icke  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
She doesn't mind a bit of beef stock thrown in her casserole dish now and again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hiram  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
What if you accidently slipped a cock in your mouth, does this count? I thought if the Priest said it was ok then God would be down with it as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
twoheadedcat  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 13 From: Bluesville, Mississippi Joined: |
I've slipped a digit up the odd hoop in my time. Things didn't work out for them when they threatened to tell their parents. I'm not going to prison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dawkinsisNOTGod  Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 33 From: Lashville, Tennessee Joined: |
Nothing wrong with imbibing the fishy soul of god through Priest spunk.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024