Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[Craig234]

That's right, because libs/"progressives" get to decide where the good vs bad discrimination line is drawn...

Have you made a worse argument in a long time.

'That's your moral OPINION'.

Slavery is wrong, because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

The holocaust was bad, because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

Or for the other side, not wearing a burka is bad because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

What the hell do you think politics are based on? That moral issues are decided upon?

How do you say that marital rape is wrong if it's not based on you deciding where the good/bad line is drawn?

You made such an idiotic post. That's how things are decided.

What you *completely omitted* is the idea of discussing where the line is drawn. Instead you simply attacked the entire notion of drawing a line, apparently suggesting we read tea leaves for the answer.

You are really coming acrosss like an idiot, for whom the word liberal makes you so insane you attack the entire basis of how moral issues are decided.

 

[Craig234]

Uh actually I do feel that way. "marriage" is "marriage". The state(as in gov't) recognizing it is a legal issue - not emotional. There may be emotion involved to those being married but the gov't doesn't care.

I think you've got things backwards. The law is pretty clear(or atleast was until some courts changed some meanings) so there isn't a "law" being pushed to prevent gay marriage. There is a push however to put things back in place after some judges/courts have changed things based on their personal opinion. This is a reaction to those who support gay marriage trying to change the laws. The point is basically that there wasn't a push to do anything until the push from the other side bypassed things and went to the courts to install their law. And so far there has not been any logical/compelling reason to change the law - it's all been based on emotion and some irrational/distorted view of equality.
Yep, institutional recognition was based on emotion. - I do not believe our gov't should be in this business.

Hack. Any judicial decision you disagree with, you make a straw man that replaces the judge's legal argument with it being 'their personal opinion'. You are a drivel spewer.

 

[Craig234]

You have a very narrow opinion of my belief system.

Ever the pragmatist, I also indulge in philosophic musings and utopian dreams. Only my dreams are more vivid than yours and fairer all around.

I stopped reading. You lie, and if you have any integrity, you would admit it.

There are many paths to enlightenment and, strangely enough, many paths to social justice that do not demand a government be involved.

I fear you are enamored by granting others authority, while I am repulsed by it.[/QUOTE]

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Have you made a worse argument in a long time.

'That's your moral OPINION'.

Slavery is wrong, because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

The holocaust was bad, because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

Or for the other side, not wearing a burka is bad because you get to decide where the good/bad line is drawn.

What the hell do you think politics are based on? That moral issues are decided upon?

How do you say that marital rape is wrong if it's not based on you deciding where the good/bad line is drawn?

You made such an idiotic post. That's how things are decided.

What you *completely omitted* is the idea of discussing where the line is drawn. Instead you simply attacked the entire notion of drawing a line, apparently suggesting we read tea leaves for the answer.

You are really coming acrosss like an idiot, for whom the word liberal makes you so insane you attack the entire basis of how moral issues are decided.

I was merely commenting on how you morons always seem to try to draw the line and then toss out the terms "bigot", "racist", etc.

 

[PJABBER]

I stopped reading. You lie, and if you have any integrity, you would admit it.

There are many paths to enlightenment and, strangely enough, many paths to social justice that do not demand a government be involved.

I fear you are enamored by granting others authority, while I am repulsed by it.

I admit that I have previously lied about Santa Claus. Happier now?

 

[glenn1]

Ever notice the first president to tell the nation equal rights was a national moral issue was AFTER Brown? Ever notice the civil rights movement was strengthened, the civil rights bill was passed AFTER Brown?

I'm expressing the opinion that you may not quite have the right opinion about public opinion. People tend to get used to the situation. You don't see alot of protestors against blacks; equal access - anymore.

Now that equal access is a 'cherished national principle'. Gay marriage may not reach that level given the likelihood of gay bigotry being longer than race bigotry, but it's still a valid point IMO.

A second issue is the notion that we should be subjugating the constitutional rights to getting that political advantage. What a nice precedent.

I'm not saying I'm totally against in theory planning for the political effect you mention. If you had a more compelling case I might agree. But IMO you don't. The issues comes down in favor of a court ruling.

Well, I would say the 13th and 14th Amendment, and Truman desegregating the Armed Forces were pre-cursors to Brown v Board. Segregation also wasn't universal, it was mainly a southern phenomenon.

I think we just have a different opinion on strategy - I think the courts route is turning up to be problematic (see reversals in California and Maine). I think that passage via legislation (see Vermont) is a slower but preferable process because it generates less pushback. Ultimately it appears both methods are being tried, we'll see which one works better in the longer run.

 

[Craig234]

Well, I would say the 13th and 14th Amendment, and Truman desegregating the Armed Forces were pre-cursors to Brown v Board. Segregation also wasn't universal, it was mainly a southern phenomenon.

I think we just have a different opinion on strategy - I think the courts route is turning up to be problematic (see reversals in California and Maine). I think that passage via legislation (see Vermont) is a slower but preferable process because it generates less pushback. Ultimately it appears both methods are being tried, we'll see which one works better in the longer run.

The amendments also predated the ruling Brown overturned, Plessy v. Ferguson, and were far too long before to have the causal relationship. That's just a silly claim.

Truman's integration of the military was more akin to a judicial decision - one guy sayng 'that's how it is' without any really public approval (even if Truman had been elected VP and inherited the office). I haven't confirmed polls on the issue, but I've noo doubt that there was plenty of opposition to Truman's action. I'm not sure if you understand the prevalence of racism, short of segregation, outside the South. Those 'white only covenants' were hardly only in the South.

The reversals in California and Maine hardly hurt the cause compared to not having had the rulings - they were both close votes, with momentum for gay marriage.

I haven't looked at demographics for Maine, but I have for California, and the vote for gay marriage was far higher than it had been in years previous, and most of the opposition was centered in a few places.

The demographics suggest before long there will be a majority for gay marriage, Seems to me the court ruling and the voting is improving the public's opinion of gay marriage.

You don't seem to be hearing some of what I'm saying. I agreed there are benefits IF you have the public approva, you keep repeating it as a new point. I discussed the *weighing* of the tradeoffs, I suggested the principles on excessive politicizing the court behavior by making the court's defending rights completely subservient to the political benefits (or more accurately what you think are the benefits), I discussed why there's no indication the court has the bad effects you suggect, and more, all seem ignored by you in your responses.

Oh well, At least we're on the same side on the basic issue.

 

[Craig234]

I was merely commenting on how you morons always seem to try to draw the line and then toss out the terms "bigot", "racist", etc.

No, you were making an idiotic point, as I said. You don't seem to know what you say. Of course, the words bigot and racist are always lies. THey don't apply to anyone, ever. You just know this.

 

[Patranus]

The word "right" is being thrown around a lot here. Since when is marriage a "right"?
If you have to get a license for marriage, it is a privilege, one that can have conditions set upon it.

Again, if it is all about choice, why can't I marry my sister? If anything that is more discriminatory as there is no other legal "category" for a relationship that we can enter.

If the argument is being able to choose the person you marry simply by the fact that you love them, than this is a pretty clear cut example.

What about marrying multiple people. If I "love" them don't I have the "right" to marry the people I choose?

 

[K1052]

The word "right" is being thrown around a lot here. Since when is marriage a "right"?
If you have to get a license for marriage, it is a privilege, one that can have conditions set upon it.

Again, if it is all about choice, why can't I marry my sister? If anything that is more discriminatory as there is no other legal "category" for a relationship that we can enter.

If the argument is being able to choose the person you marry simply by the fact that you love them, than this is a pretty clear cut example.

What about marrying multiple people. If I "love" them don't I have the "right" to marry the people I choose?

Since Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

The slippery slope marriage arguments regarding incest, underage marriage, flora, fauna, and inanimate objects have been rebutted to the point of beating a dead horse into a fine red mist.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Lets take a look at the 14th Amendment ot the United States Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This is perhaps one of the most important if not the most important amendment in the constitution. Notice the parts that I have bolded. The fact that heterosexual people can marry the one they love and homosexual people can't is a clear violation of this clause. They are being denied their liberties and they are being denied equal protection under the law. I don't see how you can say otherwise, and you are a bigot who views homosexuals as less than people.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Ah, Raisnford, I was just thinking how goods it was that avvocato was being ignored as a troll.

But let's be clear, since you did respond to him then.

Are you saying that you can't/won't think for yourself? You need the stamp of approval from Rainsford to acknowledge me? Here's a clue, don't do me any favors. If you have views, bring them and bring them strong. I'll do the same. When I want to play paddy cake, I'll socialize in a benign way with friends. When I want written combat, I'll come here, capiche?

He is clearly an ignorant coward, who hides behind claiming to support a religion he can't be bothered to get right, staining its name to put it on his bigotry, cherry picking its phrases for his own use.

Ignorant coward? Seems to me the cowards are the ones who indicated they would put me on ignore. What kind of commitment to their views does that indicate? If I'm "ignorant" you and your friends should be able to run circles around me, correct? Your writings should have the ability to tie me in knots as I bow to your "wisdom", correct? Here is what I think, you have created for yourself a comfortable little circle jerk here. You are comfortable that you can answer, in a prepackaged way, your adversaries on this forum. You can count on those with like views to rush to your defense. I'm here to really challenge you and others. Let's see what you've got!

He denies rights to a group he'd like to feel superior to. To hide what he's doing, he pretend its justified by the bible. Confronted the bible actually condemns divorce without adultery, he runs away from the bible.

Really? I've said that I am willing to allow homos to join in a civil union. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Once again, I hate divorce. Could I be any more clear than that? I will oppose the dissolution of a union of homos with the same force of law as a divorce of a married couple. Clear?

He's pretty clearly here to get reinforcement how right he is by viewing the forum members as some sort of degenerates who 'prove him right as the only guy who's right' the more they attack him.

Like any cult member, there's not much rational discussion can do for him. We lack the ability to make him face his lies. To make him face his abusing religion the way terrorists do. He's a crazy troll.

Here to get reinforcement? How wrong you are my little puppy! Check the record. I have been attacked by forum members and supported by few. Some have started a drum beat indicating (without proof) that I am a former member. They have not offered proof but have recommended that others ignore me. Why? Are my views so dangerous that I threaten the fragile "status quo" on this forum?

I am not a cult member. You have offered no proof that I have lied. I am not religious in any way. Calling me a troll seems the be the MO of you and the rest of your "circle jerk" buddies (both adversaries and friends) on this forum. You have a decision to make here son, I'm here, I have views that are beyond reproach and derive from the Rock. Bring it but bring it strong.

He can't add to a discussion. He can just post provocative dogmatic lies and watch the reaction that 'proves him right as the heathen disagree'. He's deluded that his bigotry is religiously belssed to post.

Look at him. 'They will use their authority as US citizens to push their agenda'. What agenda - gay discrimination? Slavery? Forcing people to follow their religion or be jailed or killed? It all fits in his logic.

Can't add to the discussion? Seems that you and your fellows can't leave me alone! You can't form a coherent response or even answer the points I bring. As I have stated before, many of you have given up. That means that my views are supreme and will rule. As it should be.

Again, I am not religious. You have declined to indicate your status, are you a heathen? Discriminating against gays is illegal. I do not engage in illegal activity. I do not condone slavery. I do not advocate the killing or jailing of people who disagree with me. I don't use logic, I use wisdom.

There's zero respect for the values in the constitution or bill of rights. USE their power to PUSH their agenda. That's not religious tolerance, not free speech tolerance, all of that's unimportant.

All that matters is 'pushing their agenda'. That's not as in 'our religion believes stealing is wrong, so we'll vote against stealing', while respecting others' religious freedom. It's as in 'we don't care what you say, we'll vote any bigotry we want because we don't care if it's bigotry. Concern for others' equal rights is your value.'

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are Law documents. "Values" of those documents are not yours to assess. Activism based on current social pressure should not be used when using these documents in judgement. What is written is written. Strict construction is the correct way.

Characterizing me as a bigot is intellectually dishonest and lazy. It is comparable to calling me a troll. Leave the troll name calling to intellectual midgets like Red Dawn. He seems to be lazy, uninformed, stuck on a losing path and frustrated. That said, he seems to be the "pied piper" that is able and willing to mobilize support to attempt to marginalize my views. Judging from his post count, he is a loser who has nothing else going for him but his presence on this forum. It's a sad waste of time.

You see, pushing bigotry and not worrying about is the same thing Paul did. He says.

Their agenda is the 'cause of Christ'. The fact that divorce outside marriage is the 'Cause of Christ'? Inconvient and ignored. Can't be bothered with a difficult issue, espcially affecting them,

Pick on the small groups. Gays. They're the same people with the same mindset that picked on blacks. Too bad that waqs taken from them, but now it's too difficult.

What a load of crap! "Divorce outside of marriage", what is that? I'm not picking on gays. I am responding to issues advanced in this thread.

Equating the struggle of "blacks" with this homo marriage issue is insulting to Blacks and objected to by respected forum members like Classy.

This guy is a bigot and an ignorant person hiding behind religion, as authoritarian church cults teach their followers to do. He clearly has inadequate real life social contacts to confront his wrongs.

Bull crap. If I'm a bigot, you're a bigot. You are living in a bubble created by this forum. Look at the vote for Prop 8 and come to reality. The majority believes that this "gay marriage" thing is bogus.

So, he stumbles across AT and dabbles here to see the Heathen show he's right by not agreeing with his oh so right religious spouting.

Muslims see terrorists lying about religion to justify wrong and hope not too many do so. We have Acvvocato lying about religion to justify wrong and hope not too many do so.

Because we do support democracy, there's no protection if the crazies get too many in number. We just point out his errors and look to keep him from winning elections.

Sadly, large double digit percentages of our society are now radicalized like him, if not usually so badly - just not enough to win without some help.

You are correct about elections. That is the only place where you will succeed in advancing your agenda. You have a king sized problem. Your side has awakened a sleeping giant. That giant has been busy keeping America safe and prosperous. That giant has allowed the enemy (you and your friends) to slip into our tent.

That's all about to change. Prepare to be brought back to the place where your views are marginalized and seen as freakish.

In closing. I applaud you. You are one of the few who has taken the time to write a real response and objection to what I bring to the table.

You , my friend, are very close to the Truth.

()

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-scotus10-2010jan10,0,4668060.story

Reporting from Washington - The lawyers defending California's Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage urged the U.S. Supreme Court today to block video coverage of next week's trial in San Francisco.

They filed an emergency appeal with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and argued that their client's right to a fair trial would be jeopardized if each day's proceedings were put on YouTube.

Wow these hate mongers loved the public before when they were sending out ads full of lies and hate. Now that they will be exposed for the bigots they are they hide. If they really viewed nothing wrong with their position they would have no problem with the public seeing their faces. I really hope the SCOTUS disregards this request to block the youtube video.

 

[Patranus]

Lets take a look at the 14th Amendment ot the United States Constitution.




This is perhaps one of the most important if not the most important amendment in the constitution. Notice the parts that I have bolded. The fact that heterosexual people can marry the one they love and homosexual people can't is a clear violation of this clause. They are being denied their liberties and they are being denied equal protection under the law. I don't see how you can say otherwise, and you are a bigot who views homosexuals as less than people.

Incorrect. Love does not enter into the equation. A homosexual CAN get married.

 

[Robor]

Incorrect. Love does not enter into the equation. A homosexual CAN get married.

If someone held your head under water would they be denying your the right to breath? After all, you can inhale.

 

[Patranus]

If someone held your head under water would they be denying your the right to breath? After all, you can inhale.

Nice straw man right there.

I guess the government should stop taking statistics on the gender of couples as it would be sexist to categorize people into different groups

 

[Robor]

Nice straw man right there.

I guess the government should stop taking statistics on the gender of couples as it would be sexist to categorize people into different groups

My comment makes far more sense than your idiotic 'gays can marry' BS.

 

[shira]

f people voted to sacrifice 11 yr old girls on alter of Ra what say you?

That would violate someone of the right to life.

Having marriage be something between a man and a woman does not discriminate against someones ability to get married based on sexual orientation. Nothing in the law states that a homosexual cannot get married.

Love does not enter into the equation. A homosexual CAN get married.

So, according to you, if people voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race, then that would be just fine, too, since it wouldn't prevent any particular black or Asian or white from getting married.

Love doesn't enter into the equation, right, since under anti-miscegenation laws a person of any race CAN get married?

Since your reasoning is obviously so solid, please explain to us why the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Patranus]

So, according to you, if people voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race, then that would be just fine, too, since it wouldn't prevent any particular black or Asian or white from getting married.

Love doesn't enter into the equation, right, since under anti-miscegenation laws a person of any race CAN get married?

Since your reasoning is obviously so solid, please explain to us why the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

At that time what comparable legal agreement existed for a black and a white to get married?

Additionally, where does it state that a homosexual cannot enter into a marriage?

Like I said before, I (personally) couldn't care less what people do on their own time, however, you have to face facts and realize what is going to happen.

(Hint: the same thing that happened with the California Supreme Court, a court that is far more liberal than the US Supreme Court)

 

[shira]

At that time what comparable legal agreement existed for a black and a white to get married?

Additionally, where does it state that a homosexual cannot enter into a marriage?

Since you're clearly incapable of following a logical argument, let me make this one clear:

You've stated a principle. Let's call it the Patranus Acceptable Marriage Limitation Principle, or PAMLP: "A law which bars a person from marrying anyone who is a member of a particular class is constitutionally acceptable as long as the law does not prevent the person from marrying altogether."

Now, answer my question, moron: Since anti-miscegenation laws clearly were NOT in violation of PAMLP, how come the SCOTUS ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional?

 

[RabidMongoose]

(Hint: the same thing that happened with the California Supreme Court, a court that is far more liberal than the US Supreme Court)

No it didn't. The CA Supreme Court (certainly more liberal than the US Supreme Court, but also full of almost all Republicans) ruled against the anti-gay marriage crowd as for the CA Constitution before it was amended. However, the CA Supreme Court later ruled that the constitutional amendment of prop 8 was valid.

 

[Patranus]

No it didn't. The CA Supreme Court (certainly more liberal than the US Supreme Court, but also full of almost all Republicans) ruled against the anti-gay marriage crowd as for the CA Constitution before it was amended. However, the CA Supreme Court later ruled that the constitutional amendment of prop 8 was valid.

And the same issue of "equal protection" or whatever you want to call it came up in that trial as well. Furthermore, case law regarding "equal protection" was brought up during the hearing including all of the cases mentioned here.

If you had actually watched the proceedings or read the transcripts, you would know this.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

And the same issue of "equal protection" or whatever you want to call it came up in that trial as well. Furthermore, case law regarding "equal protection" was brought up during the hearing including all of the cases mentioned here.

If you had actually watched the proceedings or read the transcripts, you would know this.

That was over equal protection in the state consitution. California supreme court doesn't rule in maters that regard the U.S constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Since you're clearly incapable of following a logical argument, let me make this one clear:

You've stated a principle. Let's call it the Patranus Acceptable Marriage Limitation Principle, or PAMLP: "A law which bars a person from marrying anyone who is a member of a particular class is constitutionally acceptable as long as the law does not prevent the person from marrying altogether."

Now, answer my question, moron: Since anti-miscegenation laws clearly were NOT in violation of PAMLP, how come the SCOTUS ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional?

He ignored your clear post.

Yet another variation: if he's allowed to marry any man, but not a woman, are his rights viloated?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I see 2 solutions to this:

1.) Allow homosexuals to marry, but do not force religions against it to conduct ceremonies.

2.) Get government the fuck out of marriage entirely. No more marriage licenses, no more tax breaks, no more special rights to government programs, no more special hospital visitation rights or any of the other 1000+ legal incentives there are for getting married.

I'm fine with either one.

I've always supported #2. Never understood why I'd need a state license to get married.