More layoffs at Focus on the Family

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
"murder is legal"

(O.J. nods head)



Actually..........what I reeeeally wanna know is.........


What's everybody gonna do *if* the CSC decides to uphold Prop 8?????

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.

Are you reading the same thread I'm reading? The biggest point (that's been made multiple times), far more important than the number of words which you seem to be attached to, is that it removes a fundamental right (as recognized by the Cali SC), from a group of people (also recognized by the Cali SC.) And as such, are going to have to rule again. They're not going to get out Microsoft office & do a word count to base their decision on. Let me give you a simple example to help you understand why while the length is somewhat important, it's not the over-riding factor: according to you, if they added 3 words, "murder is legal", it would be just fine because it's only 3 words long.

The California supreme court has already stated about 50 years ago that length is a factor in making the distinction. You lefties can bury your head and pretend that's not the case.

And there's no constitutional barrier to murder. There was no federal law banning the assassination of John Kennedy. So yeah, it would be.

I'm glad you Hollywood lefties are trying these stunts, though, your assholery is ensuring Prop 8 is here to stay!

 

[winnar111]

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov18,0,7313761.story

Reporting from San Francisco -- As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."



Pwned!

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov18,0,7313761.story

Reporting from San Francisco -- As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."



Pwned!

your reading comprehension of that article fails, you pwned yourself. lol.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: winnar111
The California supreme court has already stated about 50 years ago that length is a factor in making the distinction. You lefties can bury your head and pretend that's not the case.

"a factor", not THE factor. *sigh*, why am I repeating it? Anyone else would have comprehended the first time; or maybe the 2nd time.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: winnar111
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov18,0,7313761.story

Reporting from San Francisco -- As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."



Pwned!

your reading comprehension of that article fails, you pwned yourself. lol.

Nice, rofl!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.

Are you reading the same thread I'm reading? The biggest point (that's been made multiple times), far more important than the number of words which you seem to be attached to, is that it removes a fundamental right (as recognized by the Cali SC), from a group of people (also recognized by the Cali SC.) And as such, are going to have to rule again. They're not going to get out Microsoft office & do a word count to base their decision on. Let me give you a simple example to help you understand why while the length is somewhat important, it's not the over-riding factor: according to you, if they added 3 words, "murder is legal", it would be just fine because it's only 3 words long.

The California supreme court has already stated about 50 years ago that length is a factor in making the distinction. You lefties can bury your head and pretend that's not the case.

And there's no constitutional barrier to murder. There was no federal law banning the assassination of John Kennedy. So yeah, it would be.

I'm glad you Hollywood lefties are trying these stunts, though, your assholery is ensuring Prop 8 is here to stay!

"Hollywood Lefties" - lol

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.

Are you reading the same thread I'm reading? The biggest point (that's been made multiple times), far more important than the number of words which you seem to be attached to, is that it removes a fundamental right (as recognized by the Cali SC), from a group of people (also recognized by the Cali SC.) And as such, are going to have to rule again. They're not going to get out Microsoft office & do a word count to base their decision on. Let me give you a simple example to help you understand why while the length is somewhat important, it's not the over-riding factor: according to you, if they added 3 words, "murder is legal", it would be just fine because it's only 3 words long.

The California supreme court has already stated about 50 years ago that length is a factor in making the distinction. You lefties can bury your head and pretend that's not the case.

And there's no constitutional barrier to murder. There was no federal law banning the assassination of John Kennedy. So yeah, it would be.

I'm glad you Hollywood lefties are trying these stunts, though, your assholery is ensuring Prop 8 is here to stay!

"Hollywood Lefties" - lol

Who are these "Hollywood Lefties" you speak of and how can I join them?

 

[Xavier434]

I think it is funny how winnar111 while will and bitch till the end of time when the freedoms and liberties that he values are being threatened yet he supports taking away freedoms and liberties of others which have absolutely zero impact on his life both directly and indirectly with exception of some kind of smokey mind over matter conflict that he should be able to deal with on his own without government help.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Exactly, which is why an amendment (or revision) to the constitution, can be found to be unconstitutional and struck down on that basis.

Not at all. The entire point of an amendment is to amend and throw the old garbage out.

No, that's a revision. :beer:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I think it is funny how winnar111 while will and bitch till the end of time when the freedoms and liberties that he values are being threatened yet he supports taking away freedoms and liberties of others which have absolutely zero impact on his life both directly and indirectly with exception of some kind of smokey mind over matter conflict that he should be able to deal with on his own without government help.

You mean the way lefties support higher taxes for 'those other guys'?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I didn't think I'd ever hear about a layoff that made me want to cheer, but this is it.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

LOL. You think $500,000 spent towards supporting prop-8 forced FOTF to lay off employees? You hare don't have any clue, do you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

LOL. You think $500,000 spent towards supporting prop-8 forced FOTF to lay off employees? You hare don't have any clue, do you?

You're a hare!

Yes, I think it was a contributing factor at the very least. You seem skeptical though, so feel free to put forth a better explanation. Either way, so long as we can get at least 4-5 states to put forth anti-gay marriage bills on their ballots every two years, FOTF will be bankrupt in no time. It's the ultimate honeypot for ignorant bigoted homophobic shitheads!

 

[HannibalX]

Remind me again, who voted for the ban? A majority of voters did? I see.

The ban is utter bullshit. Gay folks should be able to get married like anyone else and then lose half their shit in a divorce.

 

[jman19]

Layoffs at Focus on the Bigots? Sounds good to me :thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The problem is the ban is NOT constitutional. There are rules to change the constitution and one of the rules states to change the constitution it must be initiated by the State legislature and be passed by a 2/3`s of the legislature.
You cannot take a simple proposition that only needs a majority to pass and subvert or by pass the rules to change the constitution!

The California Supreme Court will beat down Prop8...trust me that is a given!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Exactly, which is why an amendment (or revision) to the constitution, can be found to be unconstitutional and struck down on that basis.

Not at all. The entire point of an amendment is to amend and throw the old garbage out.

Proposition8 was never an amendment, which is why it will be struck down by the Courts!!
You cannot change or deny people rights based in just a proposition!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Exactly, which is why an amendment (or revision) to the constitution, can be found to be unconstitutional and struck down on that basis.

Not at all. The entire point of an amendment is to amend and throw the old garbage out.

In CA there is a legitimate legal argument regarding the scope of change to the constitution and if the correct process was used (amendment vs. revision) so it will probably end up in front of the CA supreme court again.

If this was a federal amendment you'd be correct but thankfully that amendment process is a hell of a lot harder to get done and for good reason. The founders don't want the mob tinkering with the government at their whim.

California courts have previously said a 21000 word change to the 55000 word Consitution was a revision.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml

And the two cases that I've found in other states that dealt with the same question have likewise concluded that an opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: Bess v. Ulmer (Alaska Supreme Court, 1999), and Martinez v. Kulongoski (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2008). Bess, in particular, expressly applied California precedents (though with a minor change that doesn't seem relevant here), and concluded that the opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: "Few sections of the Constitution are directly affected, and nothing in the proposal will 'necessarily or inevitably alter the basic governmental framework' of the Constitution."

again the problem with what your saying is that proposition8 was niether an amendment nor a revision.........a revision or an amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority to pass........not just a simple majority as a proposition requires!!

Peace!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: winnar111
And if they have a shred of honesty about adhering to the precedent that lefties cry about so much, it'll be decided my way.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You don't get it, you were already smacked around in this thread. Nut up and take it like a man.

Rofl, ok!

The only people smacked around were the lefties in Hollywood. Oh, and people like you.

why do you always go into crying mode...or sarcastic mode when you are wrong???
lolol

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: alien42
judging by this thread, i would say winnar111 is a 'catcher'.

Focus on the Family should be paying taxes like every other corporation.

He prefers the term "bottom".

He prefers the term "bottom feeder"!! -- fixed for the propogation of mankind!!

 

[Harvey]

Hey, winnar111 -- You still haven't told us what it is about allowing gay couples to marry that so threatens your life that it justifies you being such a bigoted prick in the first place. :roll:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

The will of the people is quite a bit different from changing the constitution.....
If the people could use a proposition to change the constitution then it stands to reason that it should also require the same 2/3 vote in order to pass not a simplke 50.1% vs 49.9%........that is not the will of all people. That is the will of those who managed to care enough to vote for whatever reason!

Peace!!

 

[Craig234]

On a side note, you gotta love some families who are so consistently bad for our country.

The woman who is an auto parts heiress who frequently funds radical right-wing causes, who was personally the fourth largest donor to the yes ojn 8 campaign (from out of state), is also a found of 'focus on the family' that is the leading anti-gay group in the nation - and she is the mother of the founder of Blackwater, the mercenary military group who the government made a $1 billion contract with as they replace much of the military's functions with high-paid contracters to fit the ideology of the Bush administration to 'privatize'.

That family reminds me well why to have a large estate tax that prevents dynasties.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

LOL. You think $500,000 spent towards supporting prop-8 forced FOTF to lay off employees? You hare don't have any clue, do you?

You're a hare!

Yes, I think it was a contributing factor at the very least. You seem skeptical though, so feel free to put forth a better explanation. Either way, so long as we can get at least 4-5 states to put forth anti-gay marriage bills on their ballots every two years, FOTF will be bankrupt in no time. It's the ultimate honeypot for ignorant bigoted homophobic shitheads!

i obviously meant to say "You really dont have any clue, do you?" I blame that one on holding a baby in one hand while typing and not having my coffee yet!

Anyways, do you have ANY idea how much money the FOTF group goes through? $500,000 is a drop in the bucket to them. If anything, their recent layoffs are do to the economy effecting the ammount of donations they have received. But nice huffington post talking point!