Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[Southern Chicken]

Dont be silly. From 1776 to the 1990s we never had same sex marriage and our existance and survival has continued just fine. Loving is quoting Skinner v Oklahoma

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0316_0535_ZO.html

In both Virginia and Oklahoma at the time, sex outside of marriage was illegal which made marriage necessary for procreation.

Hey Dixon can you try to read what I actually posted. Or might, I suggest that you take a course in reading comprehension? I will copy and paste from my post and maybe you could understand the bolded

Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage. The exclusion came in another form... sodomy laws. And this made sense, yes? Through most of our Nation's history marriage was about procreation and part of the government's regulation to ensure this was the existence of sodomy laws

But this changed (starting in 1961) when states began repealing sodomy laws (either through legislative action or through judicial challenge). Suddenly, there was nothing to keep same-sex couples from marrying in states that had a legal definition on the books. So, states began changing the legal definition of marriage.

 

[dixon76710]

Simple minded idiot; When 12% of the population suddenly recieves tax breaks and benefits your maritital status is irrelevent. WTF is wrong with you?

And what they receive is irrelevant to my tax rate, fool. Obviously you cant even keep track of what you are claiming.

Your sole concern is that gay marriage could possibly affect your tax rate.
.

No effect on my tax rate at all.

12%????? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Delusional nancy boy. The countries who have had same sex marriage the longest are seeing ONE HALF of ONE% of all marriages are same sex marriages. Tiny minority.

 

[dixon76710]

Hey Dixon can you try to read what I actually posted. Or might, I suggest that you take a course in reading comprehension? I will copy and paste from my post and maybe you could understand the bolded

Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage.

1872 CALIFORMIA


Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But you were talking about the will of the people and threrefor you must believe that if the majority of the people want slavery (their will), then it should be allowed.

And it WAS allowed, for nearly a century, because it was the will of the people. When did it change, Einstein? Wasn't it following a Civil War? Who changed it, some judge? No... the Congress passed the 13th and 14th Amendment, and the elected president issued an Emancipation Proclamation... it was never left up to an un-elected judge to settle the issue and "enact change!"

Because in the same sentence of yours, you talk about the will of the people who vote; ergo: Homosexuals vote so their will to have the laws changed is also part of their rights.

Aww Forrest... I am sorry, I forgot I needed to explain that sometimes people use the phrase "will of the people" in reference to the collective voting majority.

What right of homosexuals is being violated? We've NEVER allowed same sexes to marry! You are trying to claim some right that simply never existed!

Sure they are and have done so in the past. Who do you think ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, if it wasn't the courts? I agree, you attempts are really sorry.

Segregation laws existed for a long time, why did the court take so long to rule against them? Let me help you here... because, for many years, the courts had no legal basis to rule the laws unconstitutional. It was only after Congress enacted legislation, that courts were able to make these findings. You see, it's a funny thing, the way our system works... we elect representation, they pass laws, the courts uphold the laws. The court doesn't enact change, the court doesn't make the laws, and the court don't trump the elected representatives or the will of the people.

 

[Southern Chicken]

1872 CALIFORMIA


Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

I cant believe I have to do this-----CAN YOU read what I posted and say that your response is relevant?

Here i will copy and paste some of my post one more time.......

Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage.


ex·plic·it (k-splst)
adj.
1.
a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" (Frederick Turner).


ban 1 (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree:

I see that I will just have to follow my own sig line with you.....

 

[Rune]

Forget it. The fucking moron is too stupid to realize when he is wrong. Probably is the real Dixie since it acts and beleives so similarly.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The DOMA will go down in flames, faster then Slick Willy's zipper, and the more knuckledraggers scream and shout, the more people realize that DOMA was wrong to begin with.
Dixie: Just because DOMA fails, doesn't mean that you're going to be forced to marry a man.

It seems to me, you have been saying this since before DOMA passed.

Keep pushing Gay Marriage, keep trying to lobby the courts to "enact change" from the bench.... YOU WILL GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

I'm sorry, but we've encountered this sort of thing before, and that is what happened. The people don't like for you to force things down their throat against the will of the people.... it's not cool. So we can keep on giving you civics lessons, on how the courts and laws work, and how things are determined constitutional, and we can continue to watch elected representatives run from the Gay Marriage issue because it's just not popular with constituents. But the line will be drawn at judicial tyranny, we won't stand for it.

 

[Rune]

And what they receive is irrelevant to my tax rate, fool. Obviously you cant even keep track of what you are claiming.



No effect on my tax rate at all.

12%????? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Delusional nancy boy. The countries who have had same sex marriage the longest are seeing ONE HALF of ONE% of all marriages are same sex marriages. Tiny minority.

Son, you just surpassed Bravo as the single stupidest member. Holy fuck are you thick.

 

[poet]

It seems to me, you have been saying this since before DOMA passed.

Keep pushing Gay Marriage, keep trying to lobby the courts to "enact change" from the bench.... YOU WILL GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

I'm sorry, but we've encountered this sort of thing before, and that is what happened. The people don't like for you to force things down their throat against the will of the people.... it's not cool. So we can keep on giving you civics lessons, on how the courts and laws work, and how things are determined constitutional, and we can continue to watch elected representatives run from the Gay Marriage issue because it's just not popular with constituents. But the line will be drawn at judicial tyranny, we won't stand for it.

Try to stop it. The only way you can is via "domestic terrorism". Y'all know how to do that real good. And see nothing wrong as long as the ends justify the means.

 

[Granule]

Don't worry; your errors don't make you appear any dumber than your sentiments do.

Now, now, liberal. Let's not get testy. Put your hemp darts away; I'm just the messenger.

 

[Rune]

Now, now, liberal. Let's not get testy. Put your hemp darts away; I'm just the messenger.

Just doing my job. Try conveying a factual message next time.

 

[Socrtease]

14th Amendment
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!

I really do wonder if you ever think before you type, or you just let your fingers fly. The argument about goat fuckers is stupid to the extreme. A goat cannot consent to sex with a person and therefore the consent aspect is lost. Same is true for pedophiles. children lack the ability to consent, and in most states, unless a child is emancipated, he or she cannot consent to marriage.

As for polygamy, what evidence do you have that polygamy is a sexual choice. Historically it has ALWAYS been about procreation. Abraham took Keturah solely for procreational purposes. Sarah could not bear him a son. If she could have, no Keturah. Moslems allow for multiple wives also for procreation. To increase the number of believers. The same was true for LDS and FLDS. David Koresh was the exception to the rule. Polygamy, at least in subsets of society has never been about sexual preference.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try to stop it. The only way you can is via "domestic terrorism". Y'all know how to do that real good. And see nothing wrong as long as the ends justify the means.

No, it can be stopped fairly easily. If SCOTUS overturns the CA appeals court ruling, it's stopped. If they uphold it, constitutional amendments can be passed and ratified, there are easily enough votes for that, should it come to it. So either way, it will be stopped, and all without violence.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I really do wonder if you ever think before you type, or you just let your fingers fly. The argument about goat fuckers is stupid to the extreme. A goat cannot consent to sex with a person and therefore the consent aspect is lost. Same is true for pedophiles. children lack the ability to consent, and in most states, unless a child is emancipated, he or she cannot consent to marriage.

This doesn't matter because we would have already established meanings of words can change and be redefined.. what does 'consent' mean? What does 'child' mean? How do you know the goat can't consent, and you are just incapable of understanding it? Age barriers can come down, as pedos push for their 'rights to marry the one they love' under the equal protection of the law!

As for polygamy, what evidence do you have that polygamy is a sexual choice. Historically it has ALWAYS been about procreation. Abraham took Keturah solely for procreational purposes. Sarah could not bear him a son. If she could have, no Keturah. Moslems allow for multiple wives also for procreation. To increase the number of believers. The same was true for LDS and FLDS. David Koresh was the exception to the rule. Polygamy, at least in subsets of society has never been about sexual preference.

Call me crazy, but doesn't procreation involve sex? Sorry, just had to point that out. In any event, I don't recall saying polygamy was a sexual lifestyle choice, it is an alternative lifestyle choice, which by your definition, would include sex with multiple wives. It is also very heavily tied to religious beliefs, so there is also that aspect. Once you have altered the status quot, and re-defined traditional marriage to include a sexual lifestyle or alternative preferences of lifestyle, you have paved the way for groups like polygamists, who want to legalize and legitimize their behavior or lifestyle. It's a Pandora's Box, and you simply want to shrug that off and pretend it wouldn't be the case, but you've continued to fail to explain why I am not right.

I won't comment on your intelligence level, but it's obviously not on par with my own in this argument.

 

[poet]

No, it can be stopped fairly easily. If SCOTUS overturns the CA appeals court ruling, it's stopped. If they uphold it, constitutional amendments can be passed and ratified, there are easily enough votes for that, should it come to it. So either way, it will be stopped, and all without violence.

If. Moron. Can't you see the writing on the wall? The country is moving toward tolerance and acceptance. And you take for granted how determined your opposition is. It just may come to violence. You will not deny us our unalienable rights. You're confused.

 

[Socrtease]

14th Amendment
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!

Hey STUPID, this is where you called it a sexual lifestyle. You really can't remember what stupid shit you said earlier can you?"

 

[Socrtease]

This doesn't matter because we would have already established meanings of words can change and be redefined.. what does 'consent' mean? What does 'child' mean? How do you know the goat can't consent, and you are just incapable of understanding it? Age barriers can come down, as pedos push for their 'rights to marry the one they love' under the equal protection of the law! The only thing that would change if you allowed same sex marriages is that instead of saying a man and a woman, it would say two consenting adults. Marriage is still marriage, we have over the years altered who that includes. Used to be voting was carried out ONLY by land owners. That was who was included in voting laws throughout the ages. Overtime, the definition of a voter has not changed, only who may be a voter has changed. Didn't change the act of voting, or lessen it's importance.



Call me crazy, but doesn't procreation involve sex? Sorry, just had to point that out. In any event, I don't recall saying polygamy was a sexual lifestyle choice, it is an alternative lifestyle choice, which by your definition, would include sex with multiple wives. It is also very heavily tied to religious beliefs, so there is also that aspect. Once you have altered the status quot, and re-defined traditional marriage to include a sexual lifestyle or alternative preferences of lifestyle, you have paved the way for groups like polygamists, who want to legalize and legitimize their behavior or lifestyle. It's a Pandora's Box, and you simply want to shrug that off and pretend it wouldn't be the case, but you've continued to fail to explain why I am not right.

I won't comment on your intelligence level, but it's obviously not on par with my own in this argument.

Now back to your regularly scheduled ASS WHOOPING. So you think that pedophiles could successfully lobby to get sex with children made legal? The act itself is illegal, homosexuality is not. I don't know how a goat could consent, but I could ask you how you consent, because you are being the most obtuse horse's ass here.

 

[dixon76710]

I cant believe I have to do this-----CAN YOU read what I posted and say that your response is relevant?

Here i will copy and paste some of my post one more time.......

Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage.

ex·plic·it (k-splst)
adj.
1.
a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" (Frederick Turner).

ban 1 (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree:

I see that I will just have to follow my own sig line with you.....

You are the idiot. Perhaps you are reading the word AND to mean OR. It doesnt.

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage

"MALE" and "FEMALE". MAN and WOMAN. HUSBAND and WIFE, FATHER and MOTHER. Words have meanings.

 

[Socrtease]

You are the idiot. Perhaps you are reading the word AND to mean OR. It doesnt.

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage

"MALE" and "FEMALE". MAN and WOMAN. HUSBAND and WIFE, FATHER and MOTHER. Words have meanings.

Yes, and some of those laws used to included descriptors limiting the marriage of whites to people of other colors. The words were changed, making the law more inclusive, but not changing the meaning of marriage.

 

[dixon76710]

Yes, and some of those laws used to included descriptors limiting the marriage of whites to people of other colors. The words were changed, making the law more inclusive, but not changing the meaning of marriage.

No, the laws were changed to comply with the US Constitution. Purifying the white race, NOT a legitimate governmental purpose. Improving the well being of children IS such a legitimate governmental interest.