Poll: Who should have final say on gay marriage? Voters, courts or congress?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who should have final say on gay marriage?

  • The people via referendum

  • the courts via judicial rulings

  • congress via legislation


Results are only viewable after voting.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Benefits to society? Lol that is a load of bull invented by sociologists.

Really, then move out into the desert because everything everywhere else is based on that concept, oh, and you'll have to hunt for food, because food supplies and the regulation of them are part of this "common good clause" so you cannot have any of them, nothing grown by anyone or slaughtered by anyone either.

I don't think you realise that what you think is simple is only simple to you because you are simpleminded and cannot see past your own ignorance.

I'd like you better if you were a camel, then your ignorance on such things would be about the same while you would at least shut the fuck up about things you have no clue about.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No, actually none of it is true, it's a selective interpretation that no court except perhaps SA's Sharia courts would allow or maybe my bestest buddies the Taliban.

There is NO question of this in a democracy, perhaps you'd prefer a theocracy where the majority's religious views will discriminate on the minorities civil rights.

Because make no mistake, this is about "god said" against civili rights, nothing else, there isn't one fucking argument besides a religious one against it, not ONE.

In a democracy the majority's view on any subject, including gay marriage, would rule absolutely. If a majority believed that gay marriage is harmful (or simply not helpful) to their society, they simply would not allow it no matter what their religious views on it. Neither of us live in a democracy or a theocracy. As far as being about what "G-d said" about homosexuality, Jesus did not speak of it at all as far as is recorded, unless you count speaking to Paul in his dreams. (Sort of "Hey, dang, I forgot I was supposed to say Dad still hates fags, could you slip that in somewhere toward the middle for me?") While I would never presume to establish important and unimportant parts of the Bible, it seems to that homosexuality was at worst a fairly low priority, certainly not something G-d was up for sending his only son to die to stop, so I tend to relegate it alongside things like wearing a garment made of two fabrics or planting mixed crops in the same field or eating fish without scales, all three of which I've committed. But I admit a lot of Christians see it as a bigger deal.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
In a democracy the majority's view on any subject, including gay marriage, would rule absolutely.

That is enough out of you, now go back to grade 7 and learn about the basics for a democracy and what differs between democracy and mob rule.

I didn't read further than this from your post because i know that if i did and told you what i really think about you, i'd be banned with my next 30 infractions from one post alone.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
That is enough out of you, now go back to grade 7 and learn about the basics for a democracy and what differs between democracy and mob rule.

I didn't read further than this from your post because i know that if i did and told you what i really think about you, i'd be banned with my next 30 infractions from one post alone.

Democracy IS mob rule, you twit, now go back to pretending you're Rambo.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
In a democracy the majority's view on any subject, including gay marriage, would rule absolutely. If a majority believed that gay marriage is harmful (or simply not helpful) to their society, they simply would not allow it no matter what their religious views on it. Neither of us live in a democracy or a theocracy. As far as being about what "G-d said" about homosexuality, Jesus did not speak of it at all as far as is recorded, unless you count speaking to Paul in his dreams. (Sort of "Hey, dang, I forgot I was supposed to say Dad still hates fags, could you slip that in somewhere toward the middle for me?") While I would never presume to establish important and unimportant parts of the Bible, it seems to that homosexuality was at worst a fairly low priority, certainly not something G-d was up for sending his only son to die to stop, so I tend to relegate it alongside things like wearing a garment made of two fabrics or planting mixed crops in the same field or eating fish without scales, all three of which I've committed. But I admit a lot of Christians see it as a bigger deal.

I'm going to let my other post stand to show my own ignorance because it's well deserved for not bothering to read your entire post. You're wrong about Jesus not mentioning though, he sacnctioned it when he fucked Peter on the altar of Satan, few know this but it's part of original scripture.

Now that i have read your post, i apologise, i don't get your point with this post though.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Democracy IS mob rule, you twit, now go back to pretending you're Rambo.

No, democracy per definition is not mob rule, you are free to look it up, if you want to implement a definition that is yours alone, cool, no one but you cares so shut the fuck up.

I've never pretended to be anything at all, you pretend to be a big shot on the internet though, i bet if your mum found out she'd be pissed.

I leave this discussion behind me now, it's replied to and fully answered and i'm not in the market for plain ignorance so you have nothing to sell that i want to buy pussyboy.

Cheerio.
 

Medellon

Senior member
Feb 13, 2000
812
2
81
I am not alone in supporting her. The Senate does too. There is no way to square what you think her remark means with what you think it should square with. This contrast is a construct that exists only in your head, not mine. I have no idea what her remark means or what it squares or doesn't square with.

Nice bullshit answer, you make no sense.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Nice bullshit answer, you make no sense.

It's quite easy to understand, he's saying that no matter what, you have your mind mad up and you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. (the square peg being truth and your round hole being ignorance).

Hell i can't believe this sheit, now i'm the one that no one will get unless i excplictly explain it and hardly then either.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
State's rights until they amend the Constitution.

/thread

States rights are above the constitution in your fuckup of a country?

Sucks, unfortunantly most first world nations won't let you in since you support it so just sit down over there and wait for your turn.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
States rights are above the constitution in your fuckup of a country?

Sucks, unfortunantly most first world nations won't let you in since you support it so just sit down over there and wait for your turn.

Well, the US actually has a core Constitutional document. You probably don't understand it because the UK has a Queen whore and all. She tells you what you want to know.

However, under the US Constitution, there is a concept of states rights. That's what this guy is probably talking about, even though I disagree with his position on this particular topic.

We don't need a Queen or some royal inbred to tell us about it. We can read the core Constitutional document on our own. Even you can, if your queen lets you!
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
State's rights until they amend the Constitution.

/thread

We've have our differences many times in many a threads but usually end up at least somewhat agreeing...

I don't get this, so to hell with equal protection under the law? To hell with equal rights (and yes, marriage is a right as deemed by the USSC)....

I've always heard you being supportive of the constitution and bill of rights and now all of a sudden you shit all over it because you don't like thie issue at hand?

Perhaps i misjudged you greatly and you are really just a fucking twat of a man.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
We've have our differences many times in many a threads but usually end up at least somewhat agreeing...

I don't get this, so to hell with equal protection under the law? To hell with equal rights (and yes, marriage is a right as deemed by the USSC)....

I've always heard you being supportive of the constitution and bill of rights and now all of a sudden you shit all over it because you don't like thie issue at hand?

Perhaps i misjudged you greatly and you are really just a fucking twat of a man.

You obviously don't understand American Constitutional law. I realize that Americans don't have courts with funny wigs and our society rejects the general concept of Lords and titles and such, but I don't think that this should be much of a hindrance for you. I'll try to help.

First, equal protection of the law (as generally talked about by people here) is about suspect classifications. Sexual orientation isn't a suspect classification yet, although I believe that it should be. Second, it can refer to a fundamental right. However, the issue is that a Justice or the Court can frame the right in whatever the hell way they want to come to their own political goal.

You say it's "the right to marry" and I agree with that. But you know what some conservative would say? It's "the right to marry someone of your same gender." That would be their distinction.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
We've have our differences many times in many a threads but usually end up at least somewhat agreeing...

I don't get this, so to hell with equal protection under the law? To hell with equal rights (and yes, marriage is a right as deemed by the USSC)....

I've always heard you being supportive of the constitution and bill of rights and now all of a sudden you shit all over it because you don't like thie issue at hand?

Perhaps i misjudged you greatly and you are really just a fucking twat of a man.

Lobbing the personal attacks eh? I wouldn't expect anything less from you, you stupid piece of horseshit.

Anyway, I am for gay marriage, as you probably incorrectly guessed. I do not feel the Constitution addresses gay marriage, or marriage in general. Since the Constitution doesn't cover marriage, marriage is a power granted to the states via amendment 10. Until they amend the Constitution, which they should, gay marriage is a state's rights issue. In my opinion anyway...

Flame on with your personal insults, shit-for-brains.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Well, the US actually has a core Constitutional document. You probably don't understand it because the UK has a Queen whore and all. She tells you what you want to know.

However, under the US Constitution, there is a concept of states rights. That's what this guy is probably talking about, even though I disagree with his position on this particular topic.

We don't need a Queen or some royal inbred to tell us about it. We can read the core Constitutional document on our own. Even you can, if your queen lets you!

If you got your tounge out of CoW's arse you might be able to read better?

I've already stated this AND the federal constitution is not something that any one state can legislate out, are we clear or do you need this Brit to teach you more about your own judicial system?

Irellevant comments will not be commented on, but not edited out, it's good fun to see you make a fool out of yourself, please continue.

Personally, i'll burn the US flag, piss on the union jack, shit on the queen and give you the finger, i'll never be proud of anything but my OWN accomplishments, and anyone who isn't is just a retarded POS trying to leech off of others accomplishments through nationalism, patriotism, race or ethnicity. I hate everyone of them equally because there is ONE thing that joins them, they have hate for ONE group to focus on to make themselves feel better and they'll find their justification in scripture, ancient law, ethnicity or race and they are all equally fucked up in the head.

You too.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
If you got your tounge out of CoW's arse you might be able to read better?

I've already stated this AND the federal constitution is not something that any one state can legislate out, are we clear or do you need this Brit to teach you more about your own judicial system?

Irellevant comments will not be commented on, but not edited out, it's good fun to see you make a fool out of yourself, please continue.

Personally, i'll burn the US flag, piss on the union jack, shit on the queen and give you the finger, i'll never be proud of anything but my OWN accomplishments, and anyone who isn't is just a retarded POS trying to leech off of others accomplishments through nationalism, patriotism, race or ethnicity. I hate everyone of them equally because there is ONE thing that joins them, they have hate for ONE group to focus on to make themselves feel better and they'll find their justification in scripture, ancient law, ethnicity or race and they are all equally fucked up in the head.

You too.

It was clear that you didn't understand a simple concept. It still is clear, really, from your other posts about this topic and the American constitution. I realize that as a British subject of the queen, you may be jealous that we actually have a core written Constitution, but you should spend some time reading about how our one works.

Also, that part about the queen in your post is probably grounds for treason in your country.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Lobbing the personal attacks eh? I wouldn't expect anything less from you, you stupid piece of horseshit.

Anyway, I am for gay marriage, as you probably incorrectly guessed. I do not feel the Constitution addresses gay marriage, or marriage in general. Since the Constitution doesn't cover marriage, marriage is a power granted to the states via amendment 10. Until they amend the Constitution, which they should, gay marriage is a state's rights issue. In my opinion anyway...

Flame on with your personal insults, shit-for-brains.

That was a personal adress, not an insult, i only told you my observations, without profanity or judgement on you directly.

I'm very careful about personal insults, apparently you are not.

The equality principle doesn't apply? EXPLAIN WHY! it's not enough to say it doesn't since it clearly is universal or they would have written that it was not.

Marriage is a right, Loving vs Virginia, END OF THIS FUCKING DISCUSSION! if the USSC has deemed that something is a right it bloody well IS a right no matter what you "think" about it.

This discussion is impossible because you refuse to acknowledge equal rights and USSC rulings...........

So i give up, there is no educating a fool who closes his eyes and sticks his fingers in his ears at every chance to learn anything about is already set position.

Perhapse if i was you, i'd report this post for personal attack, the one you made to me, but i'm not like you and you will NEVER be like me no matter how hard you try.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
It was clear that you didn't understand a simple concept. It still is clear, really, from your other posts about this topic and the American constitution. I realize that as a British subject of the queen, you may be jealous that we actually have a core written Constitution, but you should spend some time reading about how our one works.

Also, that part about the queen in your post is probably grounds for treason in your country.

LOL, you do know where most of your constitution comes from, right?

I know it's hard to be the little brother of such a great nation as England but for fucks sakes, you've done well, stop with the jealousy.

Now if you'd just follow your constitution too, that'd be nice.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
That was a personal adress, not an insult, i only told you my observations, without profanity or judgement on you directly.

I'm very careful about personal insults, apparently you are not.

The equality principle doesn't apply? EXPLAIN WHY! it's not enough to say it doesn't since it clearly is universal or they would have written that it was not.

Marriage is a right, Loving vs Virginia, END OF THIS FUCKING DISCUSSION! if the USSC has deemed that something is a right it bloody well IS a right no matter what you "think" about it.

This discussion is impossible because you refuse to acknowledge equal rights and USSC rulings...........

So i give up, there is no educating a fool who closes his eyes and sticks his fingers in his ears at every chance to learn anything about is already set position.

Perhapse if i was you, i'd report this post for personal attack, the one you made to me, but i'm not like you and you will NEVER be like me no matter how hard you try.

Do you actually believe that constitutional law is applied that simply and universally? Seriously?

Look, I agree with your overall position of gay rights, but, man, your legal analysis leaves a lot to desire.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
LOL, you do know where most of your constitution comes from, right?

I know it's hard to be the little brother of such a great nation as England but for fucks sakes, you've done well, stop with the jealousy.

Now if you'd just follow your constitution too, that'd be nice.

The UK is basically an American puppy at this point. Hell, so many of the UK's former colonies are surpassing it now.

Again, I realize that you're jealous that we actually have a written core constitutional document, but it's clear that you have a very juvenile view of American constitutional law.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Do you actually believe that constitutional law is applied that simply and universally? Seriously?

Look, I agree with your overall position of gay rights, but, man, your legal analysis leaves a lot to desire.

Well then let's argue about that instead of you going off on a tantrum about the Queen instead of doing so, i don't give a FUCK about the Queen.

Loving vs Virginia recognized marriage as a right, now tell me how state legislation can legislate away rights.

Or how equal under the law doesn't apply to state laws vs constitutional rights.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
The UK is basically an American puppy at this point. Hell, so many of the UK's former colonies are surpassing it now.

Again, I realize that you're jealous that we actually have a written core constitutional document, but it's clear that you have a very juvenile view of American constitutional law.

Son, none of us give a sheit about that, you are the only one.

And seriously, the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper - GWB
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Well then let's argue about that instead of you going off on a tantrum about the Queen instead of doing so, i don't give a FUCK about the Queen.

Loving vs Virginia recognized marriage as a right, now tell me how state legislation can legislate away rights.

Or how equal under the law doesn't apply to state laws vs constitutional rights.

How can we 'argue' something if you don't even understand the very basic constitutional analysis and principles?! Seriously, it's cute that a subject of the queen is trying to get into this though. I'll try to help you out.

First, even if we broadly construe the right at issue as 'the right to marriage', the state can theoretically still have the ability to discriminate within that right. Of course this is a very tough standard to meet. Second, some conservative Justice (cough, Scalia, cough) will just say that the right here is "the right to marry someone of the same gender" and not simply "the right to marry." It's all in how you define the right at issue.

Look, I agree with you about same sex marriage, but your constitutional analysis is pretty freaking poor and stupid.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
How can we 'argue' something if you don't even understand the very basic constitutional analysis and principles?! Seriously, it's cute that a subject of the queen is trying to get into this though. I'll try to help you out.

First, even if we broadly construe the right at issue as 'the right to marriage', the state can theoretically still have the ability to discriminate within that right. Of course this is a very tough standard to meet. Second, some conservative Justice (cough, Scalia, cough) will just say that the right here is "the right to marry someone of the same gender" and not simply "the right to marry." It's all in how you define the right at issue.

Look, I agree with you about same sex marriage, but your constitutional analysis is pretty freaking poor and stupid.

Oh i get it just fine, the USSC has ruled that marriage is a right, that means that per the constitution itself it IS a right since their job is to interpret the constitution.

And no, you may not know this but NO state can legally construct legislation that goes against the federal constitution.

We haven't even begun discussing what happens after the repeal of state law... you really don't have a fucking clue about the US legal system, do you?

I do and i have presented knowledge to you, take it in, realise that it is fact, cement it and rid yourself of your delusions.

Ah well, i've tried to help you, i've got better things to do than to educate Americans on their constitution (which is just a god damn piece of paper) and legal system...

Good luck though, when you reach high school i'm sure you can even have an argument without baiting or trolling, not that it will make sense since you refuse to learn from the information handed to you but still, you could nod and perhaps get away with that withouth shouting "QEEEN" like you had writing tourettes.

I'm going to hold my thumbs for you, you can doit, i'm sure of it!