Heller Struck Down

[Shogun]

did you see where you said


Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read the rest of it now, you dumb shit.


To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Loving didn't validate every concept of marriage. How many times shall I bitch slap you with Utah's restrictions on polygamists in the wake of Loving?

 

[Shogun]

He's wrong on DOMA and even on Loving,.

He challenged me to prove marriage is a right while referring to Loving in most of his posts to me. Yet he hasn't a clue what the court said in Loving...

In its decision, the court wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.​

IM QUOTING THE REST OF THE FUCKING VERDICT THAT YOU CANT SEEM TO READ.

MARRIAGE, in regards to Loving, was specifically noted as INTER-RACIAL UNIONS. Loving was still decided between a man and a woman. GAYS have not had their Loving case yet. They don't have a 14th amendment.


Reading too much into the first ten words of the verdict is indeed funny as shit. Please, keep going!

 

[Shogun]

Exactly correct. But shogie knows better.... eh?

indeed, Jillian.. it's probabaly IMPOSSIBLE for anti gay groups to toss out as many opinons about societal harm as the pro-gay crowd can otherwise, eh?


Go pass a privacy amendment or some other indication that the democratic will of the people side with your opinon. Otherwise, your argument is in the same boat as Warren Jeffs opinion.

 

[Shogun]

Show-gun, has been proven wrong.

please, allow him him lick his wounded scrotum in peace.

HAHAHA!


dude, you haven't proven shit besides that you can avoid reading the rest of the Loving verdict.


falling into some thronged out circle jerk will probably make it less of a fact that states, including CA, have been amending their Constitions and the Fed won't do a damn thing about it thanks to DOMA.

 

[Shogun]

he is at that... he's also a blowhard.

Ah well, I tried to help him stop embarrassing himself.

Dude.. you need the backing of some illiterate dipshit to echo your opinion and you think IM the one emberassing myself, lawyer?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

the case was about the right to marry which you keep saying does not exist.

race was the coloring (lol) but the case was about discrimination and the right to marry. the case can and will be applied to discrimination against gays in their right (that you deny exists ) to marry.

your critical thinking skills are weak in the area where you need to string tow sentences together,.

think of it as a logic string.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

quote: by SNOWGUMS: Dude.. you need the backing of some illiterate dipshit to echo your opinion and you think IM the one emberassing myself, lawyer?

okie dokie SnowGums.

.

 

[Shogun]

Yeppers... to a greater or lesser degree depending on the nature of the right being infringed, the extent of the infringement and the governmental interest in the infringing legislation.

if only marriage were a right says the polygamist.

 

[Ravi]

The Constition (10th) gives states the authority to restrict marriages.

Give me an example of where that has been done.

 

[Shogun]

shogie, Show-gun...

how about Snow-gums/SnowGums? as in snow jobber who flaps his gums wildly?

How about providing evidence beyond ten words of a verdict that you clearly don't want to read all the way through?


But, Ihear High Fiving Jillian will make your arguemet less stupid this side of Utah's polygamy restrictions.


DOH!

 

[Shogun]

the case was about the right to marry which you keep saying does not exist.

race was the coloring (lol) but the case was about discrimination and the right to marry. the case can and will be applied to discrimination against gays in their right (that you deny exists ) to marry.

your critical thinking skills are weak in the area where you need to string tow sentences together,.

think of it as a logic string.

No, stupid, it wasn't merely about "the right to marry". It was about the right of interracial unions to marry despite discrimination as protected by the 14th amendment. You know, that pesky fucking little piece of word juice that was meant to protect THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES?


No, the right to marriage doesn't exist. Why are polygamists restricted? WHY are you not busy insisting that THOSE marriages are a right? Why? Because you are a short-sighted fuckstick whose grasp on the fed hinges on jillian's misunderstanding of LAW and OPINION.

No, Loving was not about some "general discrimination". WOW, you really are stretching, aren't ya?




Indeed, tell me all about your laughable logic after trying to figure out why Warren Jeffs is in prison.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

How about providing evidence beyond ten words of a verdict that you clearly don't want to read all the way through?


But, Ihear High Fiving Jillian will make your arguemet less stupid this side of Utah's polygamy restrictions.


DOH!

gosh batgirl, you're a bigger idiot than they say you are

 

[Shogun]

okie dokie SnowGums.

.

Well, you know what they say about ad hominems in lue of a viable arguement...





Yup, the fed is running out to legalize polygamy RIGHT NOW while overturning the DOMA just because YOU think marraige is a civil right!


for REAL!

 

[Shogun]

Give me an example of where that has been done.

Utah in regards to polygamy..

 

[Shogun]

gosh batgirl, you're a bigger idiot than they say you are

wow PROFOUND post you got there, homey!


Holy SHIT, did you feel the earth quake and rumble while you typed that?


Fuck, now you must know what MOSES felt like on his trip down the mountain, eh sack lunch?


Gosh, why on EARTH can't you defend your opinion with evidence like I am? SURELY you have something to offer besides acting like a greek chorus to Jillians ramblings, eh?

 

[Shogun]

My goodness.. it sure did get awfully quite in here after I pointed out how anti-polygamy laws this side of Loving pretty much paint your alls opinion in a certain shade of shit brown, eh?

 

[Ravi]

Utah in regards to polygamy..

Link, please.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Link, please.

you've found spacehog?

 

[Annie]

Shogun is on pretty solid ground. Several of the posters here were cited by both majority and minority of SCOTUS. It's the minority that was going for 'interpretative', the majority was text orientated.

http://volokh.com/

 

[jillian]

Shogun is on pretty solid ground. Several of the posters here were cited by both majority and minority of SCOTUS. It's the minority that was going for 'interpretative', the majority was text orientated.

http://volokh.com/

What are you talking about? the Loving case? He's totally wrong.

Tell me, Kathianne, do you think McCain will be whining about judicial review of legislation today? Or is it only judicial activism when the other side of the bench strikes down legislation?

BTW, there's no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. For the bench to even review the legislative act of the D.C. legislature, they had to "interpret" the constitution vis a vis Marbury v. Madison, since judicial review doesn't exist in the four corners of the document.