or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Suck it, haters.

post #1 of 202
Thread Starter 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.



You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.

To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.

Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 202
Where's The GayKK? They were fun.
post #3 of 202
Yea, to hell with what the people want....
post #4 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Yea, to hell with what the people want....

No, it's the people who want immoral things that are to hell with. Like denying equality. That's immoral. If you think Jesus would support Proposition 8, then you don't know the Jesus I do.

If what people want is against the constitution of the United States of America, or the state in which they live, they can fuck off as well. Do you disagree with that?

Really really great news!!!
post #5 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.

It shouldn't make your happy. Understand I voted AGAINST prop 8 but getting what you want temporarily the wrong way isn't the same as getting it the right way and, in my opinion can create backlash instead of progress.

The reality is that this now may go to the Federal Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned of all the courts.

Quote:
To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.

Perhaps spiking the football when you are on the 5 yard line is premature.
Quote:
Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better

No, what we can say to them is that we hope people pursing the agenda don't create a backlash against it which is what created prop 8 in the first place.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.



You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.

To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.

Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.

You are telling me that the Mormon religion is against gays and minorities. Than who wants Romney for president with these views of his religion.
post #7 of 202
... with liberty and justice for all. ??

What is it about the little 3-letter word "all" that religious and social conservatives fail to understand?
When did "liberty" get redefined as "restricted".
And since when did "justice" mean "just us" for the aforementioned group?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 202
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are telling me that the Mormon religion is against gays and minorities. Than who wants Romney for president with these views of his religion.

Bigots who are against gays and minorities.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 202
Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?

Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?

I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?

Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?

Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?

I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?

Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?

Excellent questions.

I believe the State shouldn't be allowed to determine who can and cannot enter into voluntary contracts or agreements that don't infringe upon the rights of others.

But the State IS involved. And because it is involved, we are unnecessarily pitted against each other. We are fighting over who gets to use government to protect their own interests at the expense of others.

The sooner more people realize that the initiation of aggression against peaceful people is wrong - even when you use the State to do it on your behalf - the better off we'll all be.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 202
This is also disturbing proof that at the end of the day, regardless of the issue at hand, men/women in robes are legislating by decree in this country, bypassing the work of elected representatives and even direct votes from the people themselves . The will of the people is ultimately irrelevant.

That sounds a bit like the form of government from which our founding fathers declared independence.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 202
Has anyone looked into this ruling? It is pretty damn crazy in what it asserts!

Quote:
"The opinion holds that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional only in a case where the state had already granted full legal rights to same-sex couples," said University of Minnesota law school professor Dale Carpenter.

The decision "is specifically looking at the role of Proposition 8 in the California context," said Santa Clara University law professor Margaret M. Russell. Because it is limited to California, the Supreme Court may not be as concerned about reviewing it as it would a ruling that would have affected the entire country, she said.

The court ruled that the equal protection clause doesn't matter. Arizona CAN ban gay marriage but California cannot amend their Constitution because they already had a judge rule gay marriage was constitutional when overturning the prior law that prevented it.

Regardless of your view on gay marriage, someone really wants to attempt to defend this legal reasoning??!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?

Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?

I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?

Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?

The state has to recognize civil unions and determine what marriage bodies can be recognized before that is done, which will automatically force recognition of gay marriages. Do you think anyone opposed to full gay marriage will accept this? The process may end up being even more difficult this way.

But in principle, I agree with you.
post #14 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This is also disturbing proof that at the end of the day, regardless of the issue at hand, men/women in robes are legislating by decree in this country, bypassing the work of elected representatives and even direct votes from the people themselves . The will of the people is ultimately irrelevant.

That sounds a bit like the form of government from which our founding fathers declared independence.

What you're saying is that there's no role for the constitutional courts. This is asinine. There is a good reason our state and federal governments are based on a triumvirate system. It's so that men not in robes cannot make laws that are against the constitution. You claim you respect the constitution but you're telling me the courts shouldn't be allowed to interpret it? That's absurd.
post #15 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Has anyone looked into this ruling? It is pretty damn crazy in what it asserts!



The court ruled that the equal protection clause doesn't matter. Arizona CAN ban gay marriage but California cannot amend their Constitution because they already had a judge rule gay marriage was constitutional when overturning the prior law that prevented it.

Regardless of your view on gay marriage, someone really wants to attempt to defend this legal reasoning??!

That's not what the ruling says at all. It says that Prop 8 is against the California constitution. It may be perfectly fine under the Arizona constitution, who knows? It didn't say squat about validation based on previous ruling.
post #16 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The state has to recognize civil unions and determine what marriage bodies can be recognized before that is done, which will automatically force recognition of gay marriages.

I don't follow this logic at all? Why must the state recognize it all all? Who do you want to be forced to recognize gay marriages and why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Do you think anyone opposed to full gay marriage will accept this?

I'm confused here. What is "full gay marriage?"

What I'm saying is that private relationships should be just that. Why must the state have any say in it whatsoever?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But in principle, I agree with you.

OK

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't follow this logic at all? Why must the state recognize it all all? Who do you want to be forced to recognize gay marriages and why?

Because there are likely hundreds of laws that depend on the state's recognition of a union between two people. I suppose you could try changing each and every one of those first... But...

Quote:
I'm confused here. What is "full gay marriage?"

Pardon my brevity. I meant full recognition of gay unions, of course, including unions by churches that call it 'marriage', and not just civil unions.

Quote:
What I'm saying is that private relationships should be just that. Why must the state have any say in it whatsoever?

I agree, but extremely complicated legal changes would need to be made first, taking decades. Of course those who really want freedom for gays to marry would choose to do it in the more practical way.
post #18 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.



You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.

To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.

Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.

I'm so fucking sick of this shit. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "hater." You support gay marriage, and that is the only position a reasonable human being is allowed to have. Why? Because you are a member of the liberal elite. The liberal elite are more moral than everyone else. They have the only non-reprehensible positions on gay rights, on taxes, on poverty, on abortion, on stem cell research, on global warming, on war...on EVERYTHING. Well I've had enough. I'm calling you out on your bullshit. You are better than no one. You opinion is no better than any random asshole off the street.

Oh, and one more thing: The 9th circuit is the most liberal, activist federal court in the nation. After lecturing the people of California on what is the proper basis for legislation (e.g. moral positions are not sufficient basis), the panel decided the case on...a moral basis. They felt they were right, and that's all there is to it. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about the CA amendment. The liberal, pro-gay rights judges simply didn't like it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 202
I see someone is in the second phase of the death of their ideology.
post #20 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because there are likely hundreds of laws that depend on the state's recognition of a union between two people. I suppose you could try changing each and every one of those first... But...

Like what? Doesn't eliminating the need for state recognition effectively invalidate those dependencies?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Pardon my brevity. I meant full recognition of gay unions, of course, including unions by churches that call it 'marriage', and not just civil unions.

I still don't know what this means. Are you saying you want to force churches to "recognize" gay marriages? Perform them?

Who or what needs to be forced to "recognize" gay marriages? That's the part I don't get? I'm saying give people the freedom to marry however and whoever they want. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to recognize anything. Who or what needs to be forced to do this and why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I agree, but extremely complicated legal changes would need to be made first, taking decades.

What's so complicated about declaration from the highest governing authority that says something like:

"We're out of the business of marriage. People can do what they want in their personal relationships."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Like what? Doesn't eliminating the need for state recognition effectively invalidate those dependencies?

of course not. We have hundreds of laws guaranteeing various legal rights and responsibilities for spouses, such as visitation, legal proxy, health care decision making, debt responsibility, custody, ownership, etc. You can't just invalidate those laws.

Quote:
I still don't know what this means. Are you saying you want to force churches to "recognize" gay marriages? Perform them?

Of course not! But to recognize union making bodies, as would be necessary to maintain those laws that depend on unions, the state must recognize all union making bodies equally. They couldn't, for instance recognize unions made by the Catholic Church but not by the Universal Unitarians. That means official recognition of gay marriage.

Quote:
Who or what needs to be forced to "recognize" gay marriages?

The state, where there are laws that recognize unions.
Quote:
That's the part I don't get? I'm saying give people the freedom to marry however and whoever they want. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to recognize anything. Who or what needs to be forced to do this and why?

The state must say, "There was a ceremony performed by the West Hollywood Unitarian Church between Mr. Gerald Fitzpatrick and Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald. We recognize this as a legal union for purposes of law." Get it now?

Quote:
What's so complicated about declaration from the highest governing authority that says something like:

"We're out of the business of marriage. People can do what they want in their personal relationships."

Oops. What happens to a contract when someone dies? What happens to medical decision making when someone is incapacitated? Who gets the kid? Who gets the house?
post #22 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

of course not. We have hundreds of laws guaranteeing various legal rights and responsibilities for spouses, such as visitation, legal proxy, health care decision making, debt responsibility, custody, ownership, etc. You can't just invalidate those laws.

All those things can be handled by private contractual arrangement. When X marries Y they sign a contract spelling those issues out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course not! But to recognize union making bodies, as would be necessary to maintain those laws that depend on unions, the state must recognize all union making bodies equally. They couldn't, for instance recognize unions made by the Catholic Church but not by the Universal Unitarians. That means official recognition of gay marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The state, where there are laws that recognize unions.

The state must say, "There was a ceremony performed by the West Hollywood Unitarian Church between Mr. Gerald Fitzpatrick and Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald. We recognize this as a legal union for purposes of law." Get it now?

No. We seem to be talking in circles. Why does ant government need to recognize these unions at all?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oops. What happens to a contract when someone dies? What happens to medical decision making when someone is incapacitated? Who gets the kid? Who gets the house?

Those things can easily be handled as contractual arrangements. Nothing terribly complicated there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 202
Thread Starter 
So, MJ...can we please allow marriage equality as a stopgap measure to level the playing field until the entire country can decide whether or not to ditch all the marriage laws and go straight to private contracts?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #24 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So, MJ...can we please allow marriage equality as a stopgap measure to level the playing field until the entire country can decide whether or not to ditch all the marriage laws and go straight to private contracts?

Why? Why go for stop gaps? Go for true liberty not bandages. All that happens by doing that is to legitimize that the state has any say. It shouldn't. Let's stop legitimizing it. Put all the energy to that goal instead of a ton of energy to some stop gap, then more energy to the real end goal.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

All those things can be handled by private contractual arrangement. When X marries Y they sign a contract spelling those issues out.

Those things can easily be handled as contractual arrangements. Nothing terribly complicated there.

Not everyone understands contracts and not everyone can afford a lawyer. We need laws to guarantee rights when a contract is absent.
post #26 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not everyone understands contracts and not everyone can afford a lawyer. We need laws to guarantee rights when a contract is absent.

Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.

Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.

Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?

Who defines and enforces these 'standards'? How is that agreement laid out when a contract is absent or insufficient?
post #28 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who defines and enforces these 'standards'?

Well the standards (and by this I simply mean that things would evolve along de-facto standard lines) would evolve as they do with many other types of contracts. The only ones that need to be in agreement about it are the two parties getting married. They can be highly customized and detailed or simple and pretty vanilla covering the standard things that would need to be covered.

Contracts are enforced by the courts as they are now. This isn't that complex. Again you're over-thinking this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How is that agreement laid out when a contract is absent or insufficient?

What do you mean? If there's no contract, then there's no arrangement. What are you referring to? What would be insufficient? How? Why?

You seem to have something (or things) specific in mind. What is it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's not what the ruling says at all. It says that Prop 8 is against the California constitution. It may be perfectly fine under the Arizona constitution, who knows? It didn't say squat about validation based on previous ruling.

You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?

In the same way Prohibition was unconstitutional. Or the 16th Amendment.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?

It is all in judge roberts' original ruling, which this ruling specifically upheld on the same legal grounds. What part of that don't you understand? As it has been explained to you and apparently ignored dozens of times, the amendment is unconstitutional because the procedure for amendment according to the California constitution (which is what they're talking about when they say the decision is 'California specific'), was not followed.
post #32 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

In the same way Prohibition was unconstitutional. Or the 16th Amendment.

Sorry, you're wrong on this. Prohibition was not unconstitutional. It
Was invalidated not by the courts but through additional amendment. It couldn't be invalidated by the courts because it wasn't unconstitutional. Prop 8 can be invalidated by the court because it IS unconstitutional. And that's exactly the job of the court to decide. Not some teacher (including myself) on the internet.
post #33 of 202
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why? Why go for stop gaps? Go for true liberty not bandages. All that happens by doing that is to legitimize that the state has any say. It shouldn't. Let's stop legitimizing it. Put all the energy to that goal instead of a ton of energy to some stop gap, then more energy to the real end goal.

Right...so until we have "true liberty", as you describe it, let's live with this vastly egregious trampling of civil rights.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Right...so until we have "true liberty", as you describe it, let's live with this vastly egregious trampling of civil rights.

Your hyperbole not withstanding, to seek half measures only weakens the rights you're concerned with.

Don't you see it?

You're saying "Let's get a permission slip from the state for this right."

I'm saying "You don't need a permission slip from the state for this right so let's stop letting it think it has any right to say you need one."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 202
Thread Starter 
So, by legally acknowledging that gays have the same rights as straights, we are weakening their rights? I have never heard such backwards doublespeak.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So, by legally acknowledging that gays have the same rights as straights, we are weakening their rights? I have never heard such backwards doublespeak.

No. I'm saying those rights exist with or without the state's acknowledgment.

By going to the state and asking permission, all you're doing is furthering the state's ability to make people think they need to ask it for rights and this, in effect, weakens them. I'm saying the state really doesn't have any right, reason or purpose (except to restrict people's rights) to even have a say in this issue. So the best route to take is to end run it. Push the state out of private, personal relationships. Period.

The state is basically just a big gang of force and coercion. Sure there's lots of window dressing to make seem more palatable, but when you boil it down that's all it really is. It is an organization that has asserted control (in varying degrees) over some region and group of people. It has some appearance of legitimacy, but in the end it tries to use that to control people, reduce and restrict and infringe on their rights. The more we keep asking it for permission to exercise our rights the more we legitimatize this behavior.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 202
Thread Starter 
You are living in a fantasy world completely divorced from reality. We are not going to suddenly repeal a bunch of laws to make your libertarian utopia. In the meantime, back in the real world, we have a group of people who are treated as second class citizens. We can undo that very quickly by simply passing marriage equality.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. I'm saying those rights exist with or without the state's acknowledgment.

In terms of the law, this is completely untrue. We need a constitution and laws to clarify what rights we have. Without that we may have rights by moral standards, but those rights would not be enforceable in court.
post #39 of 202
Thread Starter 
Hooray! Double suck it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Governor Gregoire of Washington

This is truly a historic day in Washington state, and one where I couldn’t be more proud. With today’s vote, we tell the nation that Washington state will no longer deny our citizens the opportunity to marry the person they love. We tell every child of same-sex couples that their family is every bit as equal and important as all other families in our state. And we take a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I commend our House members and thank Rep. Jamie Pedersen for sponsoring this bill. Our legislators showed courage, respect, and professionalism. I look forward to signing this piece of legislation, and putting into law an end to an era of discrimination.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #40 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It is all in judge roberts' original ruling, which this ruling specifically upheld on the same legal grounds. What part of that don't you understand? As it has been explained to you and apparently ignored dozens of times, the amendment is unconstitutional because the procedure for amendment according to the California constitution (which is what they're talking about when they say the decision is 'California specific'), was not followed.

To be polite, you are completely talking out your ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post



Sorry, you're wrong on this. Prohibition was not unconstitutional. It
Was invalidated not by the courts but through additional amendment. It couldn't be invalidated by the courts because it wasn't unconstitutional. Prop 8 can be invalidated by the court because it IS unconstitutional. And that's exactly the job of the court to decide. Not some teacher (including myself) on the internet.

The reason for all the convoluted and narrow decisions is an attempt to push through something that doesn't stand on good reasoning. This is why the decision against it was has not allowed marriages to resume in California and it is also why the 9th decided not to invoke equal protection and limit their opinion to California. They are hoping to keep stringing their bad reasoning along much like a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.