Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proposition 8 gets deep-sixed.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 10:59am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Only liberal judges believe the constitution is a "living breathing" document...

 
Which it would have to be, in order to take a law on the books (sodomy) and ignore  it to while claiming "civil rights violations"...
 
 
The public has spoken LOUD and clear every time this comes up... And yet, this judge knows better.
 
We can all bet how kagan and the wise latina will vote when it hits the supreme court.
 
because... They are liberal.
 
If the title fits... It confuses me why you wouldn't like it?
I am now convinced you are a troll. You're belief that the constitution is going to apply in the exact same manner throughout the progression of history is ignorant. And your application of law to the belief that the government can actually rule on an issue like sodomy is even worse. Sodomy does not only effect the homosexual community. It is a private issue in which no person or group of people should be allowed into your home to judge. Sodomy is a blue law like so many other ridiculous "on the books" laws that have no place in our society. I am shocked it took me this long to realize your posts are just a way to label people and spout religious rhetoric.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:00am
personally, I am not worried. The supreme court will fix it... Unless Obama decides a conservative judge is a "terrorist" and kills them and replaces them with another liberal activist judge...
 
 
But, the tin foil needed to get to that point is more than I wear.
 
 
course I just read The Overton window... EXCELLENT book. very Clancy like, but with more truth mixed into the fictional story.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:03am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

SO how did it make it through committee prior to the ballot if 'lawyers' and more than likely a few judges reviwed it. Makes it to ballot, fails and then one man can change the outcome. A full Judicial review (multiple Judges)maybe, but just one man having the ability to overturn the 'Will of the People' is not how the system was actually designed to work.
You make some excellent points OS, I'm glad the debate can keep going. I do not believe it's just one person that is making this decision. The decision was made in District Court, which may be made of up one judge, but is in place for a reason. It will eventually make its way to the panel of judges that you think is acceptable to rule on this, but it must first go through the channels. This issue is far from over.
 
Although these laws must first be overlooked by lawyers and possibly judges, it does not mean that through interpretation that flaws will not later be noticed. The D.C. gun ban was passed through similar channels and I'm sure that a District Court judge knocking this law down would receive praise from many people calling it unconstitutional. Laws get passed here and there that are often controversial...but they still pass.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:05am

What if the public voted loud and clear that they wanted a state religion? Or that the 2nd amendment was null and void?

The will of the public can be wrong at times, and it's the responsibility of the system to ensure that all decisions, made by the people or not, line up with Constiutional values.
 
So while you can make the point that you disagree with the judge's ruling, or that you feel the SCOTUS will rule based on partisan politics, and you may be right or wrong about either, the idea that somehow the will of the people always over rules all else is invalid.
 
On topic-this is such a complicated issue. I really could care less if homosexuals marry, but I am concerned that ministers not be forced to marry a couple in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.
 
I don't know that that's an issue, I haven't spent much time studying this. Just my only real care. Otherwise, the whole issue just screams "who cares".
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:08am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

personally, I am not worried. The supreme court will fix it... Unless Obama decides a conservative judge is a "terrorist" and kills them and replaces them with another liberal activist judge...
 
 
But, the tin foil needed to get to that point is more than I wear.
 
 
course I just read The Overton window... EXCELLENT book. very Clancy like, but with more truth mixed into the fictional story.


Every post you will ever make just lost any shred of possible credibility.  Ever.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:09am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

What if the public voted loud and clear that they wanted a state religion? Or that the 2nd amendment was null and void?

The will of the public can be wrong at times, and it's the responsibility of the system to ensure that all decisions, made by the people or not, line up with Constiutional values.
 
So while you can make the point that you disagree with the judge's ruling, or that you feel the SCOTUS will rule based on partisan politics, and you may be right or wrong about either, the idea that somehow the will of the people always over rules all else is invalid.
 
On topic-this is such a complicated issue. I really could care less if homosexuals marry, but I am concerned that ministers not be forced to marry a couple in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.
 
I don't know that that's an issue, I haven't spent much time studying this. Just my only real care. Otherwise, the whole issue just screams "who cares".
I would hope that ministers would not be forced to marry the couples if they choose not to. They do not have to marry heterosexual couples if they do not want to and the states that currently allow for homosexual marriage allow religious officials that want to marry them do so. I almost feel bad having an opinion at all over this issue. It does not have any effect on me and never will. It will not negatively impact me, so why should I have a say?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:09am
As an employer I care, if this passes, any business owner will now have to pay the addtional costs for "partners" in their healthcare costs.
 
One of a businesses largest expense is healthcare, and with Obamacare passing (which is unconstitutional btw, the government can't force you to buy something) this is just another way to give special rights instead of equal rights.
 
 
Nambla is excited about the possiblities...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:12am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

As an employer I care, if this passes, any business owner will now have to pay the addtional costs for "partners" in their healthcare costs.
 
One of a businesses largest expense is healthcare, and with Obamacare passing (which is unconstitutional btw, the government can't force you to buy something) this is just another way to give special rights instead of equal rights.
 
 
Nambla is excited about the possiblities...
You deserve all the backlash you receive for this comment. To belittle the homosexual marriage issue and relate it to pedophilia is immature. Why don't you just blame it on the Jews? Mel Gibson would be proud of you.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:14am
TRIFECTA!!!
 
 
Troll, Bigotry and now RACIST... Whoot, Dune wins!
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:15am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

TRIFECTA!!!
 
 
Troll, Bigotry and now RACIST... Whoot, Dune wins!
Sad thing is, mine was sarcasm.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:16am
As of now established religious 'ministers' can refuse to marry homosexuals with no consequence if it goes against the ministers established religious beliefs.

My contention is how do these Bills make it to the ballot after in today's information enviornment the bill makes it through the many committes consisting of Lawyers and lower court Judges. If the Bill passes, no review, if the bill fails immediate overturn. Seems to be the pattern of the more activist judges in this 'progressive' agenda.

Again Gays have had the right to marry within the confines of established law, just as the rest of us, so there is NO Civil Rights violation. So if we ammend the Law for the homosexual community where is the line, beastality, pedophilia, each of these 'radical' beliefs we see today are just as apporant to society as homosexuality was 25 years ago, so when will society be forced by activist judges to 'accept' those tennants of 'marriage'. If Joe Bob wants to marry his goat, are we violating his Civil Rights if we as a society say no in the current 'progressive' agenda? If no, explain the differance.

Edited by oldsoldier - 05 August 2010 at 11:18am
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:17am
eww, now the "I was just joking" card...
 
hahahhahahaha.
 
I'll report it all and let the mods decide!
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:19am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

As of now established religious 'ministers' can refuse to marry homosexuals with no consequence if it goes against the ministers established religious beliefs.

My contention is how do these Bills make it to the ballot after in today's information enviornment the bill makes it through the many committes consisting of Lawyers and lower court Judges. If the Bill passes no review, if the bill fails immediate overturn. Seems to be the pattern of the more activist judges in this 'progressive' agenda.

Again Gays have had the right to marry within the confines of established law, just as the rest of us, so there is NO Civil Rights violation. So if we ammend the Law for the homosexual community where is the line, beastality, pedophilia, each of these 'radical' beliefs we see today are just as apporant to society as homosexuality was 25 years ago, so when will society be forced by activist judges to 'accept' those tennants of 'marriage'. If Joe Bob wants to marry his goat, are we violating his Civil Rights if we as a society say no in the current 'progressive' agenda? If no, explain the differance.
Don't go down the slippery slope. Homosexuality is not a new issue. Just because the "wonderful 50s" pushed the issue into the gutter doesn't mean we have to keep ignoring it. Homosexuals cannot marry within the same confines as heterosexual couples and therefore do not have equal rights. But claiming beastiality is next is once again a scare tactic. I do understand your concern for how these bills make it through the channels if they are unconstitutional to begin with, but relating this issue to anything other than striving for absolute equal protection is ridiculous.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:20am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

As an employer I care, if this passes, any business owner will now have to pay the addtional costs for "partners" in their healthcare costs.
 
One of a businesses largest expense is healthcare, and with Obamacare passing (which is unconstitutional btw, the government can't force you to buy something) this is just another way to give special rights instead of equal rights.
 
 
Nambla is excited about the possiblities...
Really man? I've always felt you were way more intelligent than this crap.
 
Are you seriously equating the actions of two consenting adults to a grown man engaging in acts of pedophilia?
 
You have to be trolling with that statement. There's no way you could legitimately draw that comparison.
 
The question you have to ask isn't why it's right for gays to marry, but why it's legally wrong? I can't think of  a reason.
 
I can think of lots of reasons why it's wrong for a man to marry an animal, or for a man to marry a little boy, but for a man to marry another man? That doesn't affect me or society at all.
 
This boils down to religion. All things else aside, the modern movement in Christianity and neoconservatism (not true conservatism, BTW, there's a difference) is to shape a government around their beliefs, while doing so under the guise of conservatism. They want a government that reflects and enforces their personal beliefs, which is, BTW, completely unConstitutional.
 
I am both conservative and of the Christian belief-but I understand that I live in a free country. If it's not illegal or unconstiutional, why should I object?
 
Besides, how many straight couples out there are swingers? Doesn't that violate lots of Biblical and moral principles? Where's the fight to keep them from marrying? Or furries? Furry lovers are un natural and should be shot on sight. I wonder how many married couples are into that crap?
 
We live in a fairly amoral society. Why discriminate against one culture that you find immoral while straight people commit acts of infidelity and immorality every day, and we just shrug it off.
 
We have some of the highest divorce rates out there. A good percentage of straight marriages should have never happened. Yet, we're worried that homosexuals are going to corrupt our "pure" system.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:29am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

As an employer I care, if this passes, any business owner will now have to pay the addtional costs for "partners" in their healthcare costs.
 
One of a businesses largest expense is healthcare, and with Obamacare passing (which is unconstitutional btw, the government can't force you to buy something) this is just another way to give special rights instead of equal rights.
 
 
Nambla is excited about the possiblities...
Really man? I've always felt you were way more intelligent than this crap.
 
Are you seriously equating the actions of two consenting adults to a grown man engaging in acts of pedophilia?
 
You have to be trolling with that statement. There's no way you could legitimately draw that comparison.
 
The question you have to ask isn't why it's right for gays to marry, but why it's legally wrong? I can't think of  a reason.
 
I can think of lots of reasons why it's wrong for a man to marry an animal, or for a man to marry a little boy, but for a man to marry another man? That doesn't affect me or society at all.
 
This boils down to religion. All things else aside, the modern movement in Christianity and neoconservatism (not true conservatism, BTW, there's a difference) is to shape a government around their beliefs, while doing so under the guise of conservatism. They want a government that reflects and enforces their personal beliefs, which is, BTW, completely unConstitutional.
 
I am both conservative and of the Christian belief-but I understand that I live in a free country. If it's not illegal or unconstiutional, why should I object?
 
Besides, how many straight couples out there are swingers? Doesn't that violate lots of Biblical and moral principles? Where's the fight to keep them from marrying? Or furries? Furry lovers are un natural and should be shot on sight. I wonder how many married couples are into that crap?
 
We live in a fairly amoral society. Why discriminate against one culture that you find immoral while straight people commit acts of infidelity and immorality every day, and we just shrug it off.
 
We have some of the highest divorce rates out there. A good percentage of straight marriages should have never happened. Yet, we're worried that homosexuals are going to corrupt our "pure" system.
Instead of letting simple trolling and tattling get me into trouble I'd rather acknowledge one of the best posts I've read in a while. Although we'd disagree on many political and religious ideas, partisan politics does not always have to be a factor. Plus...furries scare me.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:31am
well... lets look at who is arguing what.
 
Are "illegals" illegal?... And yet we don't punish them, or deport them in many cases (nun killed this week by a multiple CONVICTION illegal... why was he still here?)
 
Either they are breaking the law, or law doesn't matter...
 
What about Men marrying girls?... It isn't even frowned upon today... Shoot women now marry young guys too...
 
So why would you think Nambla wouldn't be thrilled about this precident?...
 
It is just an age thing...
 
Or abortion, everyone should be able to choose if they feel like killing their baby... it is just an age thing...
 
 
All of this is a moral decline, and yes, as Americans that is the problem. We either hold our own to a high standard, or we are lawless.
 
Based on the amount of people that have no problem NOT paying their taxes (nice boat btw, why dock it out of state... Oh, to save hundreds of thousands in taxes... Ok...) or giving illegals all the rights and benefits that citizens have...
 
 
Where does it end?...
 
 
Have you heard that the administration is considering "forgiving" home loans for the portion that is underwater through freddy and fannie...
 
Yeah, so people that were irresponsible, we let them buy whatever, and keep it, since they used their house to pay for it... Then we forgive the "underwater" loan amount...
 
 
Guess I should have lived irresponsibly instead... As those are the people we "reward"...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:38am
ITT: Dune meets FE.

Dune, might as well just ignore FE's posts and try to continue an intelligent debate. No matter how many references, you cite, no matter how many times FE is proven wrong, he will either:

a) Ignore your post
b) Change the topic
c) pull out some right wing blog or opinion page and use it to back up his claim
d) accuse you of personal attacks
e) all of the above
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:40am
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

ITT: Dune meets FE.

Dune, might as well just ignore FE's posts and try to continue an intelligent debate. No matter how many references, you cite, no matter how many times FE is proven wrong, he will either:

a) Ignore your post
b) Change the topic
c) pull out some right wing blog or opinion page and use it to back up his claim
d) accuse you of personal attacks
e) all of the above
I have been away for a while I guess. Thanks for the heads up. OS was making some very solid points though. We should get back to those.
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:43am
Also, taking FE's bait once again...

This doesn't set any kind of precedent that Nambla would be interested in. 

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but:
Two. Consenting. Adults.

There are 2 key words there, consenting, and adults. Seriously, the slippery slope argument has to be one of the lamest logical fallacies ever. 

Also, I know I've said this before, but no one is going to force any religious organization to perform gay marriages. That's up to the religious organizations to control. They are after all, a private organization subject to their own rules.

Not all marriages occur in a religious context, you know.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:46am
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

Not all marriages occur in a religious context, you know.
My marriage is an example. I am an atheist and my wife agnostic. The woman who married us is a Rev., but respected our ideals and did not implement any religious context into our service. She married us because she chose to do what she felt was right.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.