Comments on: Strange Bedfellows In Prop 8 Fight
Opposing Lawyers In Bush V. Gore Team Up To Overturn California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban In Federal Court
Add a Comment See all 694 Comments
- Have a good night, democracy1!
Hey, Stu - back in a few minutes - just realized my blood sugar is low... Nothing serious.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 8:16 PM : May 27, 2009
Thanks, slow, also goodnight to "lawyers". I hope someone can argue against "army"s "stare decisis" argument. I'm just too pooped. Good night, all, even you "army". - Reply to this comment
- Did she say where in the Constitution lies the definition of marriage?
Posted by stuart2561
Nope - unfortunately refuses to answer the tough questions.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 8:15 PM : May 27, 2009
Answer them again and again you just don't read. - Reply to this comment
- read them completely before I respond
Posted by slownewday_05 at 7:56 PM : May 27, 2009
NOT!
Posted by armyoftwelve - Reply to this comment
- Until they become declared unconstitutional.
Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 8:07 PM : May 27, 2009
We've had 230+ years of these definitions being constitutional, for the court to just throw it out due to popular sentiment would mean that the court is abandoning the principle of stare decisis. This is going too far...
You folks think you're so smart, but you are really paving the way for us to lose our democracy. The right way to go about changing the definition of marriage is to change the constitution. I think you are afraid to do that because you know the American people
don't have much sympathy for self-righteous name callers. - Reply to this comment
- Well it was not as serious as originally thought. I am thankful for that and I thank you too. I appreciate that.
Posted by stuart2561 at 8:06 PM : May 27, 2009
Glad to hear it. Was surprised that you were back here so quickly. Good thing. And, yes, your son conducted himself quite well in terms of trying to notify your buddies,
And I AM sorry to leave you alone here, but 6 a.m. is going to come real soon where I live.
Best wishes! - Reply to this comment
- "This is a federal question," he said. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."
*************************************
Exactly. Same fight we went through with sufferage and civil rights. It will happen but too bad it has to be such a battle. All Americans should support civil liberties. It is what our country was founded on. - Reply to this comment
- read them completely before I respond
Posted by slownewday_05 at 7:56 PM : May 27, 2009
NOT!
Posted by armyoftwelve - Reply to this comment
- The Constitution DEFINITELY changes things with Amendments! Are you simply crazy?!
Posted by democracy1 at 7:56 PM : May 27, 2009
Well, it didn't change existing definitions of marriage did it? The original document and all of the later amendments 9th, 14th whatever.... None of them changed existing precedents about the definition about marriage. Therefore the existing definitions are
constitutional.
Trust me, there isn't anyone on this forum good enough to pass judgement on me.....
Keep up the name-calling, eventually it will boomerang back to you
Posted by armyoftwelve at 8:04 PM : May 27, 2009
1. Part of the role of the SCOTUS, is to define which standing laws ("precedents") are deemed unconstitutional
2. I have not called you any "names"--gro a thicker skin if you want to play here, - Reply to this comment
- Are you guys done?
Posted by stuart2561 at 8:02 PM : May 27, 2009
Hi stu. Hope you're better. I know you don't know me, but I was aware of your illness and was pulling for ya'. ;) - Reply to this comment
- The Constitution DEFINITELY changes things with Amendments! Are you simply crazy?!
Posted by democracy1 at 7:56 PM : May 27, 2009
Well, it didn't change existing definitions of marriage did it? The original document and all of the later amendments 9th, 14th whatever.... None of them changed existing precedents about the definition about marriage. Therefore the existing definitions are
constitutional.
Trust me, there isn't anyone on this forum good enough to pass judgement on me.....
Keep up the name-calling, eventually it will boomerang back to you - Reply to this comment
- I see, you normally call strangers obtuse. Gee, sorry I don't understand your subculture.
You are an improvement from the other two posters. Maybe I overreacted.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 7:50 PM : May 27, 2009
Huge difference between using a descriptive adjective and "name-calling", but that explains a lot about your sense of "logic". BTW, get a thicker skin and try using more facts and logic. - Reply to this comment
- Explain to me WHY I have to show you? I've already answered your question on previous posts. Trouble is, you don't like the answer. The Constitution does not change existing precedents that were in place when the Constitution was drafted. None of the amendments do either, including the 14th---therefore existing definitions are COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL!!
There are only 4 people posting on this forum. Not much of a cross-section of America.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 7:44 PM : May 27, 2009
WHAAAAAT! The Constitution DEFINITELY changes things with Amendments! Are you simply crazy?!
You are DISMISSED! Sorry if YOU don't like the answer simply because you are a nothing more or less than a right-wing apologist. And if you don't care for the name, don't work so hard to earn it. - Reply to this comment
- I read them completely before I respond
NOT! - Reply to this comment
- Still waiting for that answer you cannot answer.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 7:46 PM : May 27, 2009
Hollow question don't deserve answers...not even hollow answers - Reply to this comment
- Yet you use an example of tradition to bolster your argument. That, my friend, is what we refer to as being disingenuous.
Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 7:49 PM : May 27, 2009
I was using that quote to show that the central issue here is MARRIAGE, not tradition.
You're getting as argumentative as slow-news and you're not reading the posts much better either! - Reply to this comment
- . Slavery may have been "legal", but the 13th declared that it was unconstitutional. Which means that it had ALWAYS been unconstitutional, in essence, but that the courts had not recognized it as such, previously
If it was legal, how could it have been unconstitutional? The short answer is that if it was one then it was the other.
Look, I'm sure you feel passionate about this but you are wrong. The right way to go about changing marraige is to change the Constitution. The more judges keep reading in between the lines the greater the risk we have of losing our democracy
. Please show me where I bent your goat by doing any "name-calling", because I didn't, unless you are completely against the use of any type of adjective (which is not necessarily any form of "name-calling").
Posted by democracy1
I see, you normally call strangers obtuse. Gee, sorry I don't understand your subculture.
You are an improvement from the other two posters. Maybe I overreacted. - Reply to this comment
- From the article:
"In California, supporters of the ban hailed the court's decision as a victory for traditional
marriage"
"It goes deeper than just my right to get married,"
Sounds like someone in the article thinks the issue is about marriage.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 7:37 PM : May 27, 2009
That has nothing to do with the inherent question of whether or not it is constitutional.
Red Herring Alert! - Reply to this comment
- I asked you before to show me where the Constitution says that. You haven't been able to. Because it doesn't EXIST! It's not even IMPLIED, PERIOD!
Posted by democracy1 at 7:32 PM : May 27, 2009
Explain to me WHY I have to show you? I've already answered your question on previous posts. Trouble is, you don't like the answer. The Constitution does not change existing precedents that were in place when the Constitution was drafted. None of the amendments do either, including the 14th---therefore existing definitions are COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL!!
There are only 4 people posting on this forum. Not much of a cross-section of America. - Reply to this comment
- Slavery was legal--after the 13th it wasn't. There was no income tax---16th amendment made it allowed (even if it wasn't used).
Legal precedents actually count for a lot in our legal system. Your side keeps babbling about "tradition"--I never have.
WHY DON'T YOU GROW UP AND STOP THE NAME-CALLING!
Posted by armyoftwelve at 7:31 PM : May 27, 2009
1. Slavery may have been "legal", but the 13th declared that it was unconstitutional. Which means that it had ALWAYS been unconstitutional, in essence, but that the courts had not recognized it as such, previously.
2. Yes, you used the argument that because marriage was civilly defined as a union between a single man and a single woman at the time that the Constitution was drafted that somehow that was an inherent part of the law anf=d therefore an inherent part of the Constitution.
3. Please show me where I bent your goat by doing any "name-calling", because I didn't, unless you are completely against the use of any type of adjective (which is not necessarily any form of "name-calling"). - Reply to this comment
- try reading the article, and you'll see it's the central argument the lawyers are making.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 7:09 PM : May 27, 2009
From the article:
"In California, supporters of the ban hailed the court's decision as a victory for traditional
marriage"
"It goes deeper than just my right to get married,"
Sounds like someone in the article thinks the issue is about marriage. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
