Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you serious? Brother and sister? I thought that since Eve was made from Adam's rib, that made her a clone.So, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying my brother then?
I don't really care who you marry. It's none of my business. If you go back far enough, Adam & Eve were brother and sister.
But on the marrying part, I can't wait to collect SS benefits after my brother dies. Maybe I should marry my mother and father to.
The people don't want it, so screw them! We'll get the judges to force them to accept it!
You mean kind of like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s? I wonder if black people would be equal today if they had allowed Alabama to vote on it....
Are you serious? Brother and sister? I thought that since Eve was made from Adam's rib, that made her a clone.So, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying my brother then?
I don't really care who you marry. It's none of my business. If you go back far enough, Adam & Eve were brother and sister.
But on the marrying part, I can't wait to collect SS benefits after my brother dies. Maybe I should marry my mother and father to.
If your son or daughter were gay, wouldn't you want them to be happy?
The people don't want it, so screw them! We'll get the judges to force them to accept it!
You mean kind of like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s? I wonder if black people would be equal today if they had allowed Alabama to vote on it....
I think the law says that if you are a white guy....you are supposed to refer to "blacks" as "African American"......
Dunno if you are white or not.....but Im pretty sure you're not Bla**...errr...African American.
exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states.""In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority." Edmund Burke
Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.
"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.
exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states.""In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority." Edmund Burke
Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.
"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
Hate to break it to you DavidS, but if the Country as a whole followed the proper procedures for creating an amendment and then got enough proper votes to pass it in enough States, NO MATTER WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAID, would then be Constitutional. And NO COURT would have any power to rule otherwise.
In the State of California the people have the right to amend the State Constitution by referendum. The ONLY thing the Courts can do is rule that NOW the people no longer have that right. Which would in fact be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and grounds for impeaching any Justice that so voted.
The only real question is Do the people have the right or do they not to create Amendments through the initiative process.
You do not like it? To damn bad. Move to California , become a citizen, create an initiative to amend the Constitution and get enough people to get it on the ballot and then get the votes to pass it.
Or admit you are a FASCIST.
The federal government can also prosecute people for marijuana where it is decriminalized, they usually choose not to.exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states."Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.
"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
Wrong again. It is still not legal to wed the same sex in 48 States that I know of. So following YOUR example the 2 States that authorize it should be forced to strike it from their laws.
The Supreme Court will not make any such ruling.
Further, using your argument since pot is not criminal in some States, one can take it to the Supreme Court if they are convicted in some State on Federal or State charges? I think not. Some States allow 14 year olds to get drivers licenses, so using your argument EVERY State must? Doesn't work that way. Wait, a better one, some States allow concealed carry permits. Using your logic we should take it to the Supreme Court and force all States to allow them.
17 States outlaw fully automatic Weapons, 33 do not. Federal laws do not. Using your logic we should take it to court and force those 17 States to allow fully automatic weapons.
Getting the idea yet peabrain?
The federal government can also prosecute people for marijuana where it is decriminalized, they usually choose not to.exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states."
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
Wrong again. It is still not legal to wed the same sex in 48 States that I know of. So following YOUR example the 2 States that authorize it should be forced to strike it from their laws.
The Supreme Court will not make any such ruling.
Further, using your argument since pot is not criminal in some States, one can take it to the Supreme Court if they are convicted in some State on Federal or State charges? I think not. Some States allow 14 year olds to get drivers licenses, so using your argument EVERY State must? Doesn't work that way. Wait, a better one, some States allow concealed carry permits. Using your logic we should take it to the Supreme Court and force all States to allow them.
17 States outlaw fully automatic Weapons, 33 do not. Federal laws do not. Using your logic we should take it to court and force those 17 States to allow fully automatic weapons.
Getting the idea yet peabrain?
exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states.""In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority." Edmund Burke
Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.
"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states."Right. You are one of the people mentioned in my previous post. Backwards-assed thinking has destroyed the fiber that used to bind this society.
"Capable of" doesn't mean squat. Such is not the case here. Gays possess every right under the Constitution that I do.
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
Marriage itself is not a privilege. Marriage is a right according to United States law. In order to "classify" gay marriage as a privilege, you would need to completely re-work all existing laws for marriage in the entire country. It's far less work to just change some wording in current marriage laws to allow homosexuals the right to marry. And by the way, I will bring up once again, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a state issue. It was a federal law.
why it shows no state make a law that goes against a federal law. So therefore if the supreme court says that gay marriage is part of our civil rights, California cannot make a law denying that civil right.The federal government can also prosecute people for marijuana where it is decriminalized, they usually choose not to.Wrong again. It is still not legal to wed the same sex in 48 States that I know of. So following YOUR example the 2 States that authorize it should be forced to strike it from their laws.
The Supreme Court will not make any such ruling.
Further, using your argument since pot is not criminal in some States, one can take it to the Supreme Court if they are convicted in some State on Federal or State charges? I think not. Some States allow 14 year olds to get drivers licenses, so using your argument EVERY State must? Doesn't work that way. Wait, a better one, some States allow concealed carry permits. Using your logic we should take it to the Supreme Court and force all States to allow them.
17 States outlaw fully automatic Weapons, 33 do not. Federal laws do not. Using your logic we should take it to court and force those 17 States to allow fully automatic weapons.
Getting the idea yet peabrain?
Which destroys your entire reasoning on this having anything to do with the US Supreme Court.
exactly! For one there is no place where it defines the role of marriage. So if the Prop 8 does not get thrown out in California state supreme court the could take US supreme court and argue that the US constitution overrides their amendment. For one in Article IV section 2 it states " the citizens of each state shall be entitiled to all privieges and immunities of citizen in the several states."
I would say gay marriage could be clasified as a privilage. So either another state needs to make it legal or the supreme court will legalize it. In the end it won't be illegal in California for long.
Marriage itself is not a privilege. Marriage is a right according to United States law. In order to "classify" gay marriage as a privilege, you would need to completely re-work all existing laws for marriage in the entire country. It's far less work to just change some wording in current marriage laws to allow homosexuals the right to marry. And by the way, I will bring up once again, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a state issue. It was a federal law.
And this has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Nor are gays a new race. They are a deviant minority that is protected exactly the same as the non deviant majority. They have lost no rights nor had any civil rights violated.
Marriage itself is not a privilege. Marriage is a right according to United States law. In order to "classify" gay marriage as a privilege, you would need to completely re-work all existing laws for marriage in the entire country. It's far less work to just change some wording in current marriage laws to allow homosexuals the right to marry. And by the way, I will bring up once again, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a state issue. It was a federal law.
And this has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Nor are gays a new race. They are a deviant minority that is protected exactly the same as the non deviant majority. They have lost no rights nor had any civil rights violated.
Deviant?? Homosexuals are deviant because they are attracted to the same gender?? You've got to be kidding me. That's absolutely hilarious. How old are you, Sarge? 200? I bet you think slavery should be re-enacted in the US, don't you? Those deviant African Americans - us white people give them jobs and they want to leave that??
And again, you're completely missing my point - which isn't a surprise. You do NOT need a federal amendment to give homosexuals the right to marry because marriage is ALREADY a right for all Americans. The federal defense of marriage act is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of about 10% of Americans who are homosexual.
When that federal bill was passed, it deprived homosexuals of the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage is defined as a right based upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The United State Supreme Court in 1967 wrote when passing judgment in Loving v. Virginia that:
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.
This argument can be applied to same-sex marriage as the Supreme Court defined that marriage was a basic civil right.
The argument is what IS marriage. And the States are free to define it as between a MAN and a WOMAN.
Which is what California has done. Your Court case does not apply to Homosexuals.
In fact the weight of History is against your claim. It has been understood and has been codified in LAW to mean between a man and a woman. Your court case establishes that race can not disregard that. It does NOT change the basic foundation of what a Marriage is understood to be.
Or next, since all men have a right to marriage, why can not a man Marry a sheep? Using your law the only thing stopping that is LAWS. If all men have a right to marriage no matter what, then since the age of consent in some States is 14 the a 50 year old can marry any 14 year old he wants. Through out the Country. Why, cause one state says 14 is the age of consent and the other 49 would be refusing to honor that using your logic and that of Luissiana.
And this has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Nor are gays a new race. They are a deviant minority that is protected exactly the same as the non deviant majority. They have lost no rights nor had any civil rights violated.
Deviant?? Homosexuals are deviant because they are attracted to the same gender?? You've got to be kidding me. That's absolutely hilarious. How old are you, Sarge? 200? I bet you think slavery should be re-enacted in the US, don't you? Those deviant African Americans - us white people give them jobs and they want to leave that??
And again, you're completely missing my point - which isn't a surprise. You do NOT need a federal amendment to give homosexuals the right to marry because marriage is ALREADY a right for all Americans. The federal defense of marriage act is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of about 10% of Americans who are homosexual.
When that federal bill was passed, it deprived homosexuals of the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage is defined as a right based upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The United State Supreme Court in 1967 wrote when passing judgment in Loving v. Virginia that:
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.
This argument can be applied to same-sex marriage as the Supreme Court defined that marriage was a basic civil right.
The argument is what IS marriage. And the States are free to define it as between a MAN and a WOMAN. Which is what California has done. Your Court case does not apply to Homosexuals. In fact the weight of History is against your claim. It has been understood and has been codified in LAW to mean between a man and a woman. Your court case establishes that race can not disregard that. It does NOT change the basic foundation of what a Marriage is understood to be.
Or next, since all men have a right to marriage, why can not a man Marry a sheep? Using your law the only thing stopping that is LAWS. If all men have a right to marriage no matter what, then since the age of consent in some States is 14 the a 50 year old can marry any 14 year old he wants. Through out the Country. Why, cause one state says 14 is the age of consent and the other 49 would be refusing to honor that using your logic and that of Luissiana.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships". NAMBLA also calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."
If a 16 year old girl and a 50 year old man get married today in a state that allows 16 year old girls to get married, it's legal. Whether or not you agree with the marriage is irrelevant. I'm not Agna - I don't believe children should have the right to get married. I believe adults should have the right to irregardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.
CaféAuLait;1081792 said:Deviant?? Homosexuals are deviant because they are attracted to the same gender?? You've got to be kidding me. That's absolutely hilarious. How old are you, Sarge? 200? I bet you think slavery should be re-enacted in the US, don't you? Those deviant African Americans - us white people give them jobs and they want to leave that??
And again, you're completely missing my point - which isn't a surprise. You do NOT need a federal amendment to give homosexuals the right to marry because marriage is ALREADY a right for all Americans. The federal defense of marriage act is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of about 10% of Americans who are homosexual.
When that federal bill was passed, it deprived homosexuals of the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage is defined as a right based upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The United State Supreme Court in 1967 wrote when passing judgment in Loving v. Virginia that:
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.
This argument can be applied to same-sex marriage as the Supreme Court defined that marriage was a basic civil right.
The argument is what IS marriage. And the States are free to define it as between a MAN and a WOMAN. Which is what California has done. Your Court case does not apply to Homosexuals. In fact the weight of History is against your claim. It has been understood and has been codified in LAW to mean between a man and a woman. Your court case establishes that race can not disregard that. It does NOT change the basic foundation of what a Marriage is understood to be.
Or next, since all men have a right to marriage, why can not a man Marry a sheep? Using your law the only thing stopping that is LAWS. If all men have a right to marriage no matter what, then since the age of consent in some States is 14 the a 50 year old can marry any 14 year old he wants. Through out the Country. Why, cause one state says 14 is the age of consent and the other 49 would be refusing to honor that using your logic and that of Luissiana.
And those men you speak wanting to be with young children? Are already pushing for such laws..
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships". NAMBLA also calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."
North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
