9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Feb 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It was a pointed answer to someone attempting to argue ad hominem. Obviously it doesn't matter how long my family has been here - just as it doesn't matter whether or not I'm an American. Simply a matter of playing to the originators prejudices.

    Now do you have something on topic to say, beyond attacking me personally?

    States what, precisely? This is nothing more than than the usual unreasonable demand that the Constitution be explicit, when most anyone who has studied it understands that it's written in far more general terms and that this isn't how the law works. We rely on case law to interpret the scope. I'm not going to waste my time assembling a mound of case law just to have the effort ignored or met with a return to the same unreasonable demand - the usual tactic we've seen employed over and over again.

    So no, I'm not going to accommodate your ridiculous request. I can predict what happens next, but I'd rather not make this personal.
     
  2. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually, that's the pretense your using - that special exclusion from the law means equal.
     
  3. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113

    See the above post; ( #475) I edited in the Constitutional position on marriage.

    And then, make up some more nonsense....
     
  4. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. Read post #475, and the link provided, from Constitution.org...
     
  5. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not going to respond to your edit, since you've chosen the path of making insults. Moreover, I see that you have nothing new to say, so I'll simply go back to ignoring you.

    Edit: Just noting the source is a essentially a blog, not authoritative.
     
  6. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: Now that the ACTUAL Constitutional position on marriage (it is ENTIRELY THE COMMUNITY'S AUTHORITY) has been quoted, it's time to feign "arrogant superiority" since their ENTIRE ARGUMENT has just went down in flames...again.

    Society HAS THE RIGHT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, to define marriage, and we will continue to do so, exercising our RIGHT to CRUSH YOU AT THE BALLOT BOX...again,and again.

    Don't worry; they'll just wait we leave,and then start right in with the same lies again...it's the Leftninny Way....
     
  7. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excuse me? The COnstitution Society (http://constitution.org/c5/) is HIGHLY authoritative...try some more nonsense.
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already proven failed argument.
     
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nobody is talking about a "preference".
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already proven failed argument. a majority can't vote away the rights of the minority.
     
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already proven failed argument. I've already given you the SCOTUS precedent that says you can't define marriage any way you want with a majority vote.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  13. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, it's not "highly authoritative". It's an organization with a particular ideological slant. The people who find it "authoritative" are people whose opinions it reinforces.

    I'll stick with the the authority that really matters: those charged with the responsibility of interpreting the law.
     
  14. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Utter nonsense. Loving v Virginia was about RACE...;period.

    there is no Constitutional protection for genital preference.

    The COMMUNITY regulates marriage.Period.


    FURTHER COMMENT:

    Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.


    http://constitution.org/powright.htm
     
  15. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    :laughing: my oh my, are you making this WAY to easy on me.

    The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of <insert biased here>

    Do you see where it says 'insert biased here', that is called a VARIABLE. A Variable is interchangeable. Another wards, you can put in race, sexual orientation, age (as long the person can give their LEGAL CONSENT), etc.

    You are fixated on the variable and not the message of 'Equal Protection Clause'.

    This why you FAIL over and over and over and over.........
     
  16. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And in a republic (which is what The United States Of America is), a constitution will overrule the tyranny of majority that tries to enforce its rule on the minority.

    So, you can define marriage all you want, as long as its constitutional, which marriage is currently not.
     
  17. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And yet laws do discriminate every day about human behaviors...not "religion", "gender/sex[.n]", "race" or "ethnic origin".

    There's gonna need to be an Amendment to get "a few specific sexual fetish behaviors only" as = "race" as a protected "class". A whole new "class" has to be created in the Constitution.

    Isn't that a 2/3rds majority issue?
     
  19. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Murder, rape, theft is violated someone elses rights.

    Please do explain how gay marriage is violating peoples rights.
     
  20. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. <----answerd your question.

    You just cant handle the answer ro you throw ad homs instead. :clap:
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this strawman is a tired one. nobody is talking about a fetish or behavior.
     
  23. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Using the law to disrespect people you have a problem with seems costly to me cost liberty and blocks the pursuit of happiness for some for no reason

    Then you would say that was nothing wrong with bans on interracial marriage so long as most people wanted it. Because its wrong for people to try and change the definition of marriage to include a white and black couple

    and that marriage can be taken away for any of us by the will of the people for any or no reason
     
  24. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Your counting on civil unions not being = to marriage you go on and on about how the masses should control marriage and according to you they don’t want gays included in gay relationships

    if you really want them to be = you would just let gay marriage happen
     
  25. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0



    um the same kind of union with the same kind of perks that is marriage im not the one playing fetch with my cat hear

    i guess having a hetero sexual only and homosexual only restroom would be treating people the same

    or having restaurants only seat heterosexuals sit in them while homosexuals have to just get take out is fair and equal because everyone can get the same kind of food
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page