Ann Coulter gives Sandra Fluke and her supporters a reality check.

[KevinWestern]

God damn the day I chose to pursue my passion for cleaning toilets over a promising career as a talented stock broker.
.
.

If you are a stock broker, then the decision of Catholic institutions to not purchase contraceptives and abortificants as part of their health care package has zero impact on you.

So this loops right back to infringing the 1st Amendment simply because you want to impose your will on others.

"God damn the day I chose to pursue my passion for cleaning toilets over a promising career as a talented stock broker" was just a quick joke response, because you said I was a Janitor for a Catholic Church and I just decided to go along with it.

Get it? I'm mad that I chose to be a janitor in an insurance pool with no contraceptive coverage, when I could have chose to be a stock broker in an insurance pool with contraceptive coverage?

Anyways, just a little humor. Very serious indeed, you are.
.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

 

[saveliberty]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

Representatives of the state recognized it but the true state, its citizens, rejected it.

 

[KevinWestern]

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

Representatives of the state recognized it but the true state, its citizens, rejected it.

Yes, Saveliberty - I hate it too when that pesky thing called the "US Constitution" gets in the way of getting the things that you want.

Sorry about that (really I am).

 

[The T]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

No...The PEOPLE spoke. The COURT overruled the people.

And this is good?

 

[The T]

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

Representatives of the state recognized it but the true state, its citizens, rejected it.

Exactly.

 

[koshergrl]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

No, they AREN'T forcing.

Gay people can get married, nobody's stopping them.

 

[KevinWestern]

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

No...The PEOPLE spoke. The COURT overruled the people.

And this is good?

T - In the United States, there is something called the "Constitution".

When an initiative such as "Prop 8" is ruled to be "Unconstitutional" by official appointed Californian Supreme Court Justices, then it cannot be put to a vote, because it would potentially result in an "Unconstitutional" measure being passed.

So, you ask whether or not is it a good thing that the California Supreme Court prevented 'the people' from passing a measure that would be in direct violation of the US Constitution? Definitely.

Would you support an initiative in your home state that would ban a person's right to own a firearm, despite it being in direct violation with the Second Amendment, simply because "it's what the people wanted"?

If you said "no" to the underlined statement, then you must agree - to some extent - that there are just some things that are not proper for a state to hold a popular vote to.


.
.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, they AREN'T forcing.

Gay people can get married, nobody's stopping them.

Prop 8's sole purpose was to force the state to eliminate the legal rights that gave same sex couples the power to marry under the law.

The ballot title was clear and direct: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".

What was your point again?

 

[saveliberty]

But the state did recognize gay marriage, until the religious right forced the state not to recognize that right with prop 8.

It was the religious right who was doing the forcing in this example.

Finally, prop 8 was overturned because "[it served] no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples" (Judge Stephen Reinhardt).

No...The PEOPLE spoke. The COURT overruled the people.

And this is good?

T - In the United States, there is something called the "Constitution".

When an initiative such as "Prop 8" is ruled to be "Unconstitutional" by official appointed Californian Supreme Court Justices, then it cannot be put to a vote, because it would potentially result in an "Unconstitutional" measure being passed.

So, you ask whether or not is it a good thing that the California Supreme Court prevented 'the people' from passing a measure that would be in direct violation of the US Constitution? Definitely.

Would you support an initiative in your home state that would ban a person's right to own a firearm, despite it being in direct violation with the Second Amendment, simply because "it's what the people wanted"?

If you said "no" to the underlined statement, then you must agree - to some extent - that there are just some things that are not proper for a state to hold a popular vote to.


.
.
.

It was passed idiot. The US Supreme Court is the final arbitor. Even Constitutional amendments can be reversed by the people fool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gotta love it. "We're not violating your rights just because we're making you do things you disagree with; we're still generously allowing you to SAY whatever you want." Hey, dumbass, why don't you force people to perform abortions and tell them how their rights aren't violated because they still get to SAY that abortion is wrong and evil?

They'll force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, there is no question about that - I doubt Boo will even deny it.

Boo will defend it saying that no particular doctor is forced to perform abortions, just that the hospital must have an abortionist on staff. AND that they aren't required to perform abortions in the church building, so no rights are violated.

It would help a lot if stupid, fascistic pieces of shit like you would bother to READ the First Amendment before making your braindead pronouncements on what does and doesn't violate it. Sadly, that still won't make you any less of a moron in general.

I thing Boo knows full well what he's fighting to end.

No, I honestly doubt that Boo has any sort of comprehensive awareness of what the First Amendment actually includes and protects. And even if he did, he'd still be a halfwit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe it violate the 1st as the Catholic Church is still free to preach it's message, un-zoned.

Mischaracterizing this as an assault on the Bill of Rights is what is no suprise, as that is all the right has in it's favor, mischaracterizations. That behavior is in everything they say and do.

Gotta love it. "We're not violating your rights just because we're making you do things you disagree with; we're still generously allowing you to SAY whatever you want." Hey, dumbass, why don't you force people to perform abortions and tell them how their rights aren't violated because they still get to SAY that abortion is wrong and evil?

It would help a lot if stupid, fascistic pieces of shit like you would bother to READ the First Amendment before making your braindead pronouncements on what does and doesn't violate it. Sadly, that still won't make you any less of a moron in general.

Cecilie - By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology, for when you insulted me and called me a liar after claiming that the religious right "never outlawed gay marriage", which is clearly a completely false statement when you consider what happened in California, with prop 8.

Admitting that you were wrong would be the courageous thing to do, and a apology would demonstrate that you have some class.

Cheers.

I DO hope you're holding your breath while you wait, Tard Boy. "We illegally invented something out of whole cloth, and forced you to put a stop to our illegal nonsense, and now we're going to pretend that's the way things ALWAYS were" might impress YOU, but idiots usually ARE easily impressed.

Admitting that you're a dishonest dipshit would be the courageous thing to do, and a reality check would demonstrate that you deserve something other than contempt. See about that, twerp, and next time you want to get on your high horse with me and make demands, just tell yourself to fuck off and save me the time.

 

[KevinWestern]

Gotta love it. "We're not violating your rights just because we're making you do things you disagree with; we're still generously allowing you to SAY whatever you want." Hey, dumbass, why don't you force people to perform abortions and tell them how their rights aren't violated because they still get to SAY that abortion is wrong and evil?

It would help a lot if stupid, fascistic pieces of shit like you would bother to READ the First Amendment before making your braindead pronouncements on what does and doesn't violate it. Sadly, that still won't make you any less of a moron in general.

Cecilie - By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology, for when you insulted me and called me a liar after claiming that the religious right "never outlawed gay marriage", which is clearly a completely false statement when you consider what happened in California, with prop 8.

Admitting that you were wrong would be the courageous thing to do, and a apology would demonstrate that you have some class.

Cheers.

I DO hope you're holding your breath while you wait, Tard Boy. "We illegally invented something out of whole cloth, and forced you to put a stop to our illegal nonsense, and now we're going to pretend that's the way things ALWAYS were" might impress YOU, but idiots usually ARE easily impressed.

Admitting that you're a dishonest dipshit would be the courageous thing to do, and a reality check would demonstrate that you deserve something other than contempt. See about that, twerp, and next time you want to get on your high horse with me and make demands, just tell yourself to fuck off and save me the time.

Won't admit you're wrong Cecilie? I'd be lying if I were to say that I thought you were better than that....

And 'Tard boy'? Am I talking with a 9 year old? I remember hearing that thrown around maybe 4th or 5th grade. You should consider talking like an adult - people might take you more seriously that way.

1) California Courts Recognize Gay Marriages
Cecilie: "as though we were all going along happily, everyone getting state-sanctioned marriage certificates to whomever they wanted"

Cecilie: "BAM!"
2.) Prop 8 proposed.

Cecilie: "those bastard Republicans suddenly decided out of the blue to pass laws against it"
3.) Prop 8 passed.

 

[KevinWestern]

No...The PEOPLE spoke. The COURT overruled the people.

And this is good?

T - In the United States, there is something called the "Constitution".

When an initiative such as "Prop 8" is ruled to be "Unconstitutional" by official appointed Californian Supreme Court Justices, then it cannot be put to a vote, because it would potentially result in an "Unconstitutional" measure being passed.

So, you ask whether or not is it a good thing that the California Supreme Court prevented 'the people' from passing a measure that would be in direct violation of the US Constitution? Definitely.

Would you support an initiative in your home state that would ban a person's right to own a firearm, despite it being in direct violation with the Second Amendment, simply because "it's what the people wanted"?

If you said "no" to the underlined statement, then you must agree - to some extent - that there are just some things that are not proper for a state to hold a popular vote to.


.
.
.

It was passed idiot. The US Supreme Court is the final arbitor. Even Constitutional amendments can be reversed by the people fool.

It was passed, yet ruled Unconstitutional by a Fed Appeals Court (my error saying it was California Supreme Court).

Off to US Supreme Court?

And thanks for referring to me as an "idiot"; can see you too are "classy", just like Cecilie

 

[saveliberty]

T - In the United States, there is something called the "Constitution".

When an initiative such as "Prop 8" is ruled to be "Unconstitutional" by official appointed Californian Supreme Court Justices, then it cannot be put to a vote, because it would potentially result in an "Unconstitutional" measure being passed.

So, you ask whether or not is it a good thing that the California Supreme Court prevented 'the people' from passing a measure that would be in direct violation of the US Constitution? Definitely.

Would you support an initiative in your home state that would ban a person's right to own a firearm, despite it being in direct violation with the Second Amendment, simply because "it's what the people wanted"?

If you said "no" to the underlined statement, then you must agree - to some extent - that there are just some things that are not proper for a state to hold a popular vote to.


.
.
.

It was passed idiot. The US Supreme Court is the final arbitor. Even Constitutional amendments can be reversed by the people fool.

It was passed, yet ruled Unconstitutional by a Fed Appeals Court (my error saying it was California Supreme Court).

Off to US Supreme Court?

Who knows? The question would probably be made very narrow as to have little effect in general. A clever way to avoid issues the court wishes to leave alone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Kosher, in the context of the discussion I had with Cecilie, "outlaw" specifically meant taking away one's pre-existing legal right to be married by the state.

Cecilie: "...with this disingenuous horseshit about "outlawing" it, as though we were all going along happily, everyone getting state-sanctioned marriage certificates to whomever they wanted, until BAM! those bastard Republicans suddenly decided out of the blue to pass laws against it."

The problem is Kevin, courts don't really have the authority to create laws.

I know that the left yearns for dictatorship, so loves that appointed judges dictate law by fiat, but under the California constitution, there is no foundation in law to support this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"God damn the day I chose to pursue my passion for cleaning toilets over a promising career as a talented stock broker" was just a quick joke response, because you said I was a Janitor for a Catholic Church and I just decided to go along with it.

The point Kevin, is that unless you work for a Catholic institution, then their decision to purchase or not purchase coverage has zero impact on the rates you pay for insurance.

Once again, we are left with only your desire to impose your will on others in violation of the 1st amendment.

Get it? I'm mad that I chose to be a janitor in an insurance pool with no contraceptive coverage, when I could have chose to be a stock broker in an insurance pool with contraceptive coverage?

Anyways, just a little humor. Very serious indeed, you are.
.
.

This is a fight for the bill of rights, it is serious. What I see and the basis of American freedom is under direct assault. Obama is attempting to fundamentally alter the structure of the American government and the social contract the nation operates under.

 

[KevinWestern]

The problem is Kevin, courts don't really have the authority to create laws.

I know that the left yearns for dictatorship, so loves that appointed judges dictate law by fiat, but under the California constitution, there is no foundation in law to support this.

But the courts can rule a law unconstitutional, which effectively makes the law null and void. The California Supreme Court in 2008 didn't create any laws, it just ruled that any laws which restricted same-sex couples from being married under law were Unconstitutional, and began recognizing same-sex marriage.

Then, Prop 8 then came along and forced those laws banning gay marriage - that essentially were ruled Unconstitutional - back onto the people of California.

Now, the Federal Appeals Court has determined Prop 8 to be "Unconstitutional", and I think eventually it will all wind up at the Supreme Court.

So hopefully the US Supreme Court will rule "Unconstitutional", and people (especially on the religious right) can go back to focusing on things that will improve people's lives vs making life more difficult for others, because at the end of the day what are those on the religious right fighting for? I mean, no one's trying to ban straight marriage. No one's trying to take away the right for a man and a woman to come together and get recognized as "married" under law. Straight marriage isn't going anywhere.

I never understood this obsession with banning gay marriage.

Gay couples just want to be able to file joint taxes, access each other's medical information, access each other's wills - you know, the legal stuff - and be recognized by the state as a "couple" in the same way that a man and a woman would be recognized. The gays aren't asking the Catholics to change their doctrines, or the Protestants to go against the bible in their churches and marry same-sex couples, they simply want the same legal rights as a couple as the straight people.

I'm straight, married, and can't for the life of me figure out why other straight and married people would want to spend millions of dollars, and years of their life so that other people - whom they don't know - can't get married, making their lives considerably more troublesome and difficult. Why would I want to participate in something that AT BEST presents no change to my life, yet makes someone else worse off? Makes no sense.

We live such short lives, and there's a lot of better things we can be doing to improve our human existence. The pettiness of some people is simply unacceptable.


.
.
.

 

[BlindBoo]

Gotta love it. "We're not violating your rights just because we're making you do things you disagree with; we're still generously allowing you to SAY whatever you want." Hey, dumbass, why don't you force people to perform abortions and tell them how their rights aren't violated because they still get to SAY that abortion is wrong and evil?

It would help a lot if stupid, fascistic pieces of shit like you would bother to READ the First Amendment before making your braindead pronouncements on what does and doesn't violate it. Sadly, that still won't make you any less of a moron in general.

Why would anyone want to force an abortion on anyone? That make no sense(like your argument).

Nice whine though!



Did you stomp your feet while typing that shit out?

Ask China. They've already achieved their utopian society. It starts with controling healthcare and it ends with the gubmint telling you what you can and can't have whether you want it or not.

You really don't put much thought into things do you? No wonder they call you blind.

Wow such an intelligent response. China? You guys are projecting again. Liberals are not Chinese Communist.

Um, the dog was went blind and was totally deaf.

 

[BlindBoo]

And it's "Mayans".

Honestly, if you expect to be taken seriously at least make an effort to correctly spell those words you have only heard on tv and never actually read about...

Nobody take you spelling naztis with an offhand insult seriously.

my-annes works for me.

You spelling naztis take messageboards a bit too seriously.