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
- Wrong, this whole issue is about marriage. Prop 8 was about marriage.
I've posted multiple responses. Use your mouse hand and find them.
No one would have drafted Prop 8 if state judges hadn't got creative and made something up--about marriage. You place your argument in a context that's outside
of what created this issue to begin with--and that is marriage.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 7:23 PM : May 27, 2009
No, it's about Equal Protection under the law and there is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
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! - Reply to this comment
- I'm getting nauseous just to try to figure out this absurd circular logic that you use to attempt to justify your position!
There's no tautology...your thought process is defective.
About your "9th amendment rights:"
Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."[8] Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):
--from Wikipedia
You wrote:
"Amendments are, essentially, CLARIFICATIONS to the Constitution"----wrong they are
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES. 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! - Reply to this comment
- Try to avoid mentioning marriage, and just answer my question.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 7:12 PM : May 27, 2009
Wrong, this whole issue is about marriage. Prop 8 was about marriage.
I've posted multiple responses. Use your mouse hand and find them.
No one would have drafted Prop 8 if state judges hadn't got creative and made something up--about marriage. You place your argument in a context that's outside
of what created this issue to begin with--and that is marriage. - Reply to this comment
- here is NO point in the Constitution of the US that mandates that "marriage" has to be between one man and one woman.
Posted by armyoftwelve
Finally you made some sense.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:55 PM : May 27, 2009
No, he was citing my post. - Reply to this comment
- There is NO point in the Constitution of the US that mandates that "marriage" has to be between one man and one woman.
Slavery was not made legal by the Constitution, it was already legal, the Constitution did not outlaw it--therefore slavery was legal by default!
When our Constitution was drafted, marriage was universally defined between a man and a woman. No amendment ever changed the definition of marriage or criticized the existing definition of a marriage. By default, marriage is between two people of opposite genders. If you want to change the law, change the constitution--that's how we outlawed
slavery! It's also how we got the income tax.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 6:52 PM : May 27, 2009
GOOD GRIEF, you are OBTUSE!
No one EVER said that slavery was made LEGAL by the Constitution. Yes, an Amendment was needed to declare it to be ILLEGAL (so we all agree that prior to that Amendment, it was assumed to be legal). However, the Constitution WAS amended to make it illegal.
I'm getting nauseous just to try to figure out this absurd circular logic that you use to attempt to justify your position!
Your argument seems to be that because a tradition was in place at the time that the Constitution was drafted that such traditions are carved in stone until the Constitution is amended to declare otherwise.
BS! Tradition is NOT law! Never has been and never will be.
The 9th Amendment clearly states that certain rights are assumed, even if NOT CLEARLY STATED. THIS is exactly the precedent that allowed the 14th Amendment to be written. Otherwise, there would be no point in having Amendments.
And, contrary to your assertion, the 9th Amendment is NOT simply a footnote! As one of the first 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, I would say that it is a VERY significant part if not one of the MOST significant parts of the Constitution.
Amendments are, essentially, CLARIFICATIONS to the Constitution, based on the understanding of the intention of the Founding Fathers' original meaning of our freedoms. Did the Founding Fathers address the right of women to vote? No. But would you use that as a defense to deny them that? Same logic, kiddo, it's a no-brainer. - Reply to this comment
- You insinuated I was the equivalent of a pet rock
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:45 PM : May 27, 2009
Actually, I specifically said that you should BUY a pet rock. Since you don't read other people's posts (like you just didn't now). If you just want to argue and not listen, argue
with something-not someone.
And as for the rest of your post I've heard it all before because you keep saying the same
thing over and over....in between all the name-calling. - Reply to this comment
- You now have exposed yourself as that which you claim not to be. Bigotry, you wear it well
Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 6:31 PM : May 27, 2009
I'd say that you pretty much called me a bigot. You forget that it isn't within your power to judge a man's heart. I have NEVER called anyone on this forum a bigot, dingus, phag,
pervert, fudge-pakker, whatever.
If you would read the posts from this morning Stu,me and a couple of others had a nice
chit-chat about how civil discussion can't exist when words like bigot and pervert are being thrown around. - Reply to this comment
- As you have?
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:43 PM : May 27, 2009
You're the wrong one to be accusing anyone of name calling.
You function at the same level as Mr Crosby, except that you don't read other peoples posts. On the other hand, at least he has enough common sense to know what a marriage is.... - Reply to this comment
- Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 6:47 PM : May 27, 2009
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:45 PM : May 27, 2009
yeah, keep it up with the personal attacks.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement
I guess if you're on the wrong side of an argument, you can always sink to name-calling. - Reply to this comment
- There is NO point in the Constitution of the US that mandates that "marriage" has to be between one man and one woman.
Slavery was not made legal by the Constitution, it was already legal, the Constitution did not outlaw it--therefore slavery was legal by default!
When our Constitution was drafted, marriage was universally defined between a man and a woman. No amendment ever changed the definition of marriage or criticized the existing definition of a marriage. By default, marriage is between two people of opposite genders. If you want to change the law, change the constitution--that's how we outlawed
slavery! It's also how we got the income tax. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:39 PM : May 27, 2009
Do not feed the trolls. - Reply to this comment
- You now have exposed yourself as that which you claim not to be
And when did I ever claim to not be a kool-aid drinker.
Don't be so high-and-mighty, you post on these forums with Mr Crosby all the time.
If you find his posts so objectionable you wouldn't be here. The first sign of a narrow
mind: name-calling--the second: self-righteousness--the third: hypocrisy. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by armyoftwelve at 6:28 PM : May 27, 2009
You are completely disingenuous!
There is NO point in the Constitution of the US that mandates that "marriage" has to be between one man and one woman.
If you disagree, then quote the actual text that says it and cite where it exists in the US Constitution.
I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath. - Reply to this comment
- The brilliant move by the CA Supreme Court now FORCES this to be a federal issue. They will make gay marriage legal in all 50 states in a single judgment.
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:32 PM : May 27, 2009
Yawn, didn't you already post this. I must have responded to it about 5 times already and you keep reposting and reposting.......... - Reply to this comment
- Hunting licenses are issued to individuals, not couples so that was easy. Got a good argument that you would like to try or are you going with the lame ones
Posted by mrcrosbyll at 6:29 PM : May 27, 2009
Whoops! I should have caught that. - Reply to this comment
- Okay, a not so artful dodger and disingenous to boot.
Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 6:28 PM : May 27, 2009
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement
Such name calling! - Reply to this comment
- So - please try to follow - should a gay couple be denied getting hunting licenses?
Posted by slownewday_05 at 6:21 PM : May 27, 2009
Well, that depends-if they want to hunt moose with a duck hunting license yeah they should be denied.
Following the same logic, no one can marry someone of the same gender because that isn't what a marriage is!
This has nothing to do with homosexuals, it has to do with marriage, Theoretically, there can be situations where two persons of the same gender might want to get married even
though they aren't gay (a real-life Chuck and Larry, for example). My point is that a marraige is between ONE man and ONE woman at one time.
Of course, if same sex marriage does get forced on the country by the courts. It will open up a new cottage industry----all sorts of unscrupulous men will start marrying illegal immigrants so they can get green cards! - Reply to this comment
- As a Christian, I am sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights & equality of so many in the name of God. Our hearts are with you. Christianity For All
- Reply to this comment
- Well, the rights are retained by the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE of California have chosen to ban same-sex marriage. Yep, they were completely right to do so under the ninth amendment.
You do realize that a lot of legal scholars consider the 9th little more than a footnote.
Others see it as a dangerous back door that allows judges to make laws up...
Satisfied?
Posted by armyoftwelve at 6:10 PM : May 27, 2009
The Bill of Rights was drafted in part to not allow a "tyranny" of the majority."
In other words, just because a majority votes to deny someone their rights, does not mean it is Constitutional. We saw that in this country in the South regarding voting rights for blacks and it was struck down as being unconstitutional.
Nice rationalization, but you lose.Try again. - Reply to this comment
- What I mean is, because marriage ISN'T addressed in the constitution, tradition trumps the 14th amendment.
Posted by _LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 6:13 PM : May 27, 2009
It isn't tradition, it's legal precedent! - Reply to this comment
