Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!

[Sammy Jankis]

stringfield = dead to rights, coated in man goo.

 

[Timshel]

There is no discrimination. Marriage is a union of a male and female, and same-sex unions are not marriages. That is what the whole debate is about, whether or not we should make them equivalent to marriages. In order to do this, we must redefine the word 'marriage' to mean something else. To include a sexual behavior of questionable moral value. Once we do that, we are mandated by our Constitution to afford this 'right' to every American, regardless of their sexual preference, or whether it is of questionable moral value.

If we can redefine the word 'marriage' we can also redefine the word 'child' and the word 'consent' and we can establish a whole foundation of laws based on immorality and decadence. Once you can completely redefine the meaning of words, the word 'freedom' doesn't mean the same thing anymore...oh, it may for now, but if we establish that it's socially acceptable to redefine things we don't like, to accommodate our whims, then how can 'freedom' remain the same?

You are spewing nothing but ignorant nonsense. I encourage you to read the rulings of the court to see what they base their arguments on instead of making up nonsense or parroting the nonsense of others about what you think they are saying. Your slippery slope is of no concern whatsoever because the court has established logical tests which can not lead where you claim.

 

[Timshel]

But the legal precedent was based on separate services and accomodations. There will be no separate services and accomodations here, So your reference to that case is ill advised, and legally irrelevant.

I did not reference a case, dumbshit.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You are spewing nothing but ignorant nonsense. I encourage you to read the rulings of the court to see what they base their arguments on instead of making up nonsense or parroting the nonsense of others about what you think they are saying. Your slippery slope is of no concern whatsoever because the court has established logical tests which can not lead where you claim.

He's speaking the truth, dim-witted one. Once you legal fascist new world order types are able to redefine words at will, nothing is safe. I don't even care about gay marriage. Im opposed to nihilist statism word mangling designed to introduce a new dark ages regarding reproductive science.

 

[Timshel]

My point was, that a separate legal name will lead to separate benefits and restraints, much like the separate facilities did.

 

[Timshel]

He's speaking the truth, dim-witted one. Once you legal fascist new world order types are able to redefine words at will, nothing is safe. I don't even care about gay marriage. Im opposed to nihilist statism word mangling designed to introduce a new dark ages regarding reproductive science.

lol

Listen idiot, go crawl under a rock somewhere. The rest of us are discussing the real world, not the nightmares that cause you to stain your sheets with urine.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I did not reference a case, dumbshit.

but "separate but equal" is a well known phrase in our legal system which does reference a real legal scenario.

I guess you were intentionally misusing the phrase for a situation in which it is not applicable?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

lol

Listen idiot, go crawl under a rock somewhere. The rest of us are discussing the real world, not the nightmares that cause you to stain your sheets with urine.

You have nothing but the desperate dishonest bleating of a goat liar.

 

[Timshel]

but "separate but equal" is a well known phrase in our legal system which does reference a real legal scenario.

I guess you were intentionally misusing the phrase for a situation in which it is not applicable?

It is applicable as I explained.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It is applicable as I explained.

I thought you weren't referencing a case?


LOL.

so what is "separate"?

 

[Timshel]

I thought you weren't referencing a case?

LOL.

so what is "separate"?

I wasn't, moron. You are making two separate points. Apparently you have trouble retaining concepts. Maybe I can help...

The different legal names create separate classes of domestic cohabitation. They are separate in the same way the facilities were separate. If it is used to create invidious discrimination it is nullified by the 14th. There is little reason to create the distinction other than to create state sanctioned invidious discrimination. That's not really my biggest concern, but I see no legitimate reason for it. My biggest concern is that the separate classes of union would likely lead to less than equal benefits.

The equal part was always bullshit under Jim Crow and with separate facilities it was not likely to ever be truly equal. But you don't understand the case law. The court found that the separation can only create invidious discrimination and serves no other useful purpose. It does not matter that the separation deals with facilities. The separate treatment of the law overturned by Loving did not deal with facilities and was overturned for invidious discrimination.

 

[Timshel]

I am surprised you (nAHZi) did not claim victory in the time it took me to explain in more detail what should have been clear, if you were not so damned ignorant and resistant to knowledge.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I wasn't, moron. You are making two separate points. Apparently you have trouble retaining concepts. Maybe I can help...

The different legal names create separate classes of domestic cohabitation. They are separate in the same way the facilities were separate. If it is used to create invidious discrimination it is nullified by the 14th. There is little reason to create the distinction other than to create state sanctioned invidious discrimination. That's not really my biggest concern, but I see no legitimate reason for it. Further, the separate classes of union would likely lead to less than equal benefits.

The equal part was always bullshit under Jim Crow and with separate facilities it was not likely to ever be truly equal. But you don't understand the case law. The court found that the separation can only create invidious discrimination and serves no other useful purpose. It does not matter that the separation deals with facilities. The separate treatment of the law overturned by Loving did not deal with facilities and was overturned for invidious discrimination.

Names don't create a new reality. Only actually separate accomodations and services are actually separate. Your phantom discrimination that allegedly comes from different words is illusory, hysterical and legally irrelevant. There's no inviduous discriminatin either. Whatever that is.

 

[Timshel]

Names don't create a new reality. Only actually separate accomodations and services are actually separate. Your phantom discrimination that allegedly comes from different words is illusory, hysterical and legally irrelevant. There's no inviduous discriminatin either. Whatever that is.

Not according to the courts. It is invidious discrimination. Look it up, you even said that was my only concern. Basically, it means discrimination that creates envy or some sort of state sanctioned superiority between one group and another.

Again, I encourage you guys to read the actual opinions. They are not that difficult to read.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Not according to the courts. It is invidious discrimination. Look it up, you even said that was my only concern. Basically, it means discrimination that creates envy or some sort of state sanctioned superiority between one group and another.

Again, I encourage you guys to read the actual opinions. They are not that difficult to read.

The opinions you weren't referencing?

There is no discrimination in having two separate terms. Discrimination is proved by actual discrimination. It could be that there are significant grounds for appeal, based on the apparent foolishness of the judges you cite. Maybe at least you'll admit YOU'RE the one obsessed with words.


If what you said was correct it would be wrong to call people two different races when applying for jobs, but they do that too, AND they actually discriminate, but you're fine with all that.

 

[Timshel]

The opinions you weren't referencing?

I referenced Loving. Loving and Lawrence are going to be key.

There is no discrimination in having two separate terms. Discrimination is proved by actual discrimination. It could be that there are significant grounds for appeal, based on the apparent foolishness of the judges you cite. Maybe at least you'll admit YOU'RE the one obsessed with words.

What is the point in the two different labels? Can you answer that?

Again, when it comes to setting a legal definition, yes, it matters. You are demanding that your narrow-minded definition should determine the law. I am saying the law must be equal and therefore any legal distinctions must serve some useful state purpose otherwise they are out of bounds. The courts mostly agree with me and so you will lose.

Your principles and definitions are not workable in a legal context that cherishes equality before the law and due process.

If what you said was correct it would be wrong to call people two different races when applying for jobs, but they do that too, AND they actually discriminate, but you're fine with all that.

What's the purpose in that, dumbass? It's not the whimsical and incoherent process that you believe it is. I don't know if there have been cases challenging that or if I would agree with it, but I can give an argument for it right now. Meanwhile, you cannot tell us what purpose is served by CUs vs marriage and there is no legitimate argument for barring gay marriage either.

Just to help you out, the will of the majority does not cut it. That would justify every law.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not according to the courts. It is invidious discrimination. Look it up, you even said that was my only concern. Basically, it means discrimination that creates envy or some sort of state sanctioned superiority between one group and another.

Again, I encourage you guys to read the actual opinions. They are not that difficult to read.

Just because a judge somewhere is ignorant, and doesn't understand the meaning of a word, doesn't mean the word means something else. There is NO DISCRIMINATION! And we'll keep pounding that point home until nitwits like you understand it! The act of "MARRIAGE" is not prohibited to homosexuals, they are as free to "MARRY" as anyone else in society! But "MARRIAGE" is the union of a male and female! There is also no one prohibiting them from being in same-sex unions together, or even ACTING like they are "MARRIED" to each other, if that's what floats their boats!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I referenced Loving. Loving and Lawrence are going to be key.



What is the point in the two different labels? Can you answer that?

Again, when it comes to setting a legal definition, yes, it matters. You are demanding that your narrow-minded definition should determine the law. I am saying the law must be equal and therefore any legal distinctions must serve some useful state purpose otherwise they are out of bounds. The courts mostly agree with me and so you will lose.

Your principles and definitions are not workable in a legal context that cherishes equality before the law and due process.



What's the purpose in that, dumbass? It's not the whimsical and incoherent process that you believe it is. I don't know if there have been cases challenging that or if I would agree with it, but I can give an argument for it right now. Meanwhile, you cannot tell us what purpose is served by CUs vs marriage and there is no legitimate argument for barring gay marriage either.

Just to help you out, the will of the majority does not cut it. That would justify every law.

The point of having two different lables is preserving the meaning of the word marriage. You can't just arbitrarily change the meaning of words. You can add a new category like civil union if you want.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just because a judge somewhere is ignorant, and doesn't understand the meaning of a word, doesn't mean the word means something else. There is NO DISCRIMINATION! And we'll keep pounding that point home until nitwits like you understand it! The act of "MARRIAGE" is not prohibited to homosexuals, they are as free to "MARRY" as anyone else in society! But "MARRIAGE" is the union of a male and female! There is also no one prohibiting them from being in same-sex unions together, or even ACTING like they are "MARRIED" to each other, if that's what floats their boats!

Don't get yourself all upset.
Same sex marriages will be legally recognized as such, within your lifetime.

 

[Timshel]

Just because a judge somewhere is ignorant, and doesn't understand the meaning of a word, doesn't mean the word means something else. There is NO DISCRIMINATION! And we'll keep pounding that point home until nitwits like you understand it! The act of "MARRIAGE" is not prohibited to homosexuals, they are as free to "MARRY" as anyone else in society! But "MARRIAGE" is the union of a male and female! There is also no one prohibiting them from being in same-sex unions together, or even ACTING like they are "MARRIED" to each other, if that's what floats their boats!

The only one that is ignorant is you. You insist on remaining ignorant. You are going to lose. Then what?

It is discrimination. We and, more importantly, the courts are going to pound home to you that it is discrimination against homosexuals and based on gender. The Cali court echoed the arguments you have heard hear. The appeals court is likely to rule the same. Then to the Supreme's. You are going to lose.