Mississippi School does the right thing: Bans prom due to Lesbian couple attending.

[Samson]

sigh...I miss Recherche

So do I, and I don't know who the fuck it is.

 

[manifold]

osd for Recherche

 

[Vanquish]

I think Plymkie and I prove that it's possible to really discuss things without all the DARAH-MAH. Well maybe a little is fun

But seriously though...when you have 2 competing systems, there has to be a rule about which one rules over the other in certain circumstances.

And yes, it's in the constitution Article VI, section 2
The Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. Solidified even further in Altria Group v. Good.

But then you knew that

 

[Ravi]

Oh my, you cannot be serious.

 

[mal]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again.

Its a STATE issue. If a state, like mine, decides is cool and legal for same sex couples to marry then its legit. If another state says no they can't that is legit also.

Its not a federal issue. The federal government has no constitutional authority to pass a law about marriage one way or the other.

Its pretty simple and I dont get everyone being in 90 pages worth of a tizzy over it.

Should the Fed NOT have been Involved with States Denying Blacks and Whites to Marry?...

Should it be OK for Alabama to Deny Marriage Based on Race?...



peace...

Its not ok but if thats what the state decides is their law then thats the law. I love this red herring though, it always works like a charm for those who use it.

The feds have no constitutional authority to override state law. They have however legislated themselves that authority in an unconstitutional way...much like what they are trying to do with the healthcare bill now, legislate themselves to make laws without having to vote on them in both houses.

It's not a Red Herring... It's a Reality...



peace...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think Plymkie and I prove that it's possible to really discuss things without all the DARAH-MAH. Well maybe a little is fun

But seriously though...when you have 2 competing systems, there has to be a rule about which one rules over the other in certain circumstances.

And yes, it's in the constitution Article VI, section 2
The Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. Solidified even further in Altria Group v. Good.

But then you knew that

You mean Article 6 Paragraph 2 .

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You see they were referring to treaties and debts. This section states that treaties signed will become the law of the land and those treaties can not violate our constitution. They even went on at the end of paragraph to to make sure the state laws remained soverign.

Now look to the bill of rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Under the Constitution, the federal government is a government of express enumerated powers rather than a government of general powers.

.

 

[manifold]

Serious as a vasectomy.

 

[mal]

Serious as a vasectomy.

I'd rather have a Bottle in Front of me...



peace...

 

[del]

Serious as a vasectomy.

I'd rather have a Bottle in Front of me...



peace...

why not?
you've already had the frontal lobotomy

 

[mal]

Serious as a vasectomy.

I'd rather have a Bottle in Front of me...



peace...

why not?
you've already had the frontal lobotomy

Wasn't meant for you, but I Appreciate the Constant Attention!



peace...

 

[del]

I'd rather have a Bottle in Front of me...



peace...

why not?
you've already had the frontal lobotomy

Wasn't meant for you, but I Appreciate the Constant Attention!



peace...

you mistake random acts for attention.

whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Modbert]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uad6zBG1o]YouTube - Tiny Toon Adventures Theme Song[/ame]

 

[mal]

why not?
you've already had the frontal lobotomy

Wasn't meant for you, but I Appreciate the Constant Attention!



peace...

you mistake random acts for attention.

whatever gets you through the night.

Bitch, you couldn't Ignore me if you Tried...



peace...

 

[actsnoblemartin]

my bottom line, we shouldnt be voting what others can and cant do.

and no marrying is not the same as murder, molestation, or horsies

got it wilber?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

my bottom line, we shouldnt be voting what others can and cant do.

and no marrying is not the same as murder, molestation, or horsies

got it wilber?

I agree we shouldn't legislate behavior. hence me being against the health care bill, the government banning fats and salts, the government defining marriage, ect ect ect.

 

[Vanquish]

my bottom line, we shouldnt be voting what others can and cant do.

and no marrying is not the same as murder, molestation, or horsies

got it wilber?

I agree we shouldn't legislate behavior. hence me being against the health care bill, the government banning fats and salts, the government defining marriage, ect ect ect.

LOL. That's practically 95% of what all laws do...legislate behavior. You can't do this. You can't do that. You need a more concrete dividing line for your opinion...although there are so many ways that behavior can cross the lines of Equal Protection it's pretty hard to do. Which is why we have the laws we do.

Plymco, as for your reading of the constitution, I have the SCOTUS past and present on my side. I'm fine with that.

 

[Samson]

and no marrying is not the same as murder, molestation, or horsies

got it wilber?

 

[CurveLight]

This is the pinnacle of the homophobic Covenant of Arrogance. Nobody is trying to "validate" their marriage to you or anyone else. It is probably shocking but believe or not the purpose is nothing more than equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. When you deny two people laws and rights based on their sex you are guilty of discrimination. Period. There has never been a single definition of marriage in the US or anywhere else so the appeal to tradition is littered with dishonesty and arbitrary application.


Punks like you are why the Constitution was written. Take a bow.

That Coupling is Equal... Naturally... Hate it all you want, but it's the Truth.

The Defiance of one's Design is a Choice... A Free Choice, but NOT Equal that which is being Defied.

Sorry that makes you Cranky... The Truth is Often Unpleasant for those who are in Denial about Reality.



peace...

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or not and basing your position on that conception ultimately leads to a self defeating argument. Marriage is not natural and is a human invention no different than any of the other millions of inventions. Clothes are not natural so do you advocate nudism? Roads and cars are not only not natural but also cause untold amounts of damage to the natural earth. Are y
ou boycotting those items based on your position of unnatural=unacceptable? It is not natural for women to wear make-up or shave their pits and legs so do you advocate women cease doing those actions?

Face it, there are countless actions and items you depend on everyday that are not natural yet you use them, like your computer and the internet with great appreciation. So the natural/unnatural argument is a fail out of pure hypocrisy. What else you got nancy boy?

I can't believe tha malcontent would ignore this so I thought a refresher would be helpful since it was missed earlier........just wondering how he addresses the natural problem with his position.

 

[Father Time]

Also let's talk about all the unnatural medicine we have in society. Blood transfusions, every type of surgery, artificial limbs and organs, countless drugs, all unnatural.

 

[mal]

my bottom line, we shouldnt be voting what others can and cant do.

and no marrying is not the same as murder, molestation, or horsies

got it wilber?

My Bottom Line is that a Small Number of People in a Society who Defy their Natural Design of their own Free Will, do NOT have the Right to Insist that 95% of Society Acknowlege this Defiance in Law as Equal to that which it is FACTUALLY and NATURALLY NOT...

Doesn't Mean they should be Kept from Defying it, just that they have no Right to Demand Sanction in Law for their Choice as Equal to that which they Willfully Defy.



peace...