Prop 8 Showdown

[L.K.Eder]

It can't be debated. What part of the CON does this law violate? No more bullshit, tell me which provision of the US CON this law violates.....

oh, it can be debated. and it is. that is why this thread was started. think about it.

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

 

[ConHog]

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

Federal law does though, and has for 14 years.

See and the dumb bitch doesn't even understand that THAT law does not limit marriage to a man and a woman, it instead allows states to decide by themselves. Which sets precedent that this is a STATE issue and therefor not a federal power so bye bye it's not constitutional.

 

[ConHog]

oh, it can be debated. and it is. that is why this thread was started. think about it.

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

 

[L.K.Eder]

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

i cannot read letters this red, please try in urine-yellow, like your pants.

 

[ConHog]

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

i cannot read letters this red, please try in urine-yellow, like your pants.

come on now, I just complimented you for being more grown up then some and you respond like that?

Just answer the question. How is prop 8 unconstitutional? I of course know you are delaying because you have nothing, but give it a try anyway.

Here, I'll help... It COULD be argued, and in fact I suspect this is the exact argument that will be made, that not allowing gay marriages is hindering their pursuit of happiness.................... The answer to that of course is that it can also be argued that NO ONE needs be married to be happy.....

COme on LK give me your best response.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

Again, it is not a law.

If you want to know what makes it unconstitutional, it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

 

[syrenn]

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

Isnt it laughable when he stamps his foot like a petulance little boy having a tantrum?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

i cannot read letters this red, please try in urine-yellow, like your pants.

come on now, I just complimented you for being more grown up then some and you respond like that?

Just answer the question. How is prop 8 unconstitutional? I of course know you are delaying because you have nothing, but give it a try anyway.

Here, I'll help... It COULD be argued, and in fact I suspect this is the exact argument that will be made, that not allowing gay marriages is hindering their pursuit of happiness.................... The answer to that of course is that it can also be argued that NO ONE needs be married to be happy.....

COme on LK give me your best response.

dude, i can have one kind of discussion on one thread, and another in another thread.

you want my personal opinion about prop 8 and its constitutionality?

it is a classic case for the slogan "republic, not democracy".

i won't indulge you about the constitutionality of prop 8, you will have to watch what happens.

 

[ConHog]

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

Again, it is not a law.

If you want to know what makes it unconstitutional, it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

I know it's not a law, I was just using using the word for convention.

ok, provision 1 of the 14th I presume you are referring to?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is actually a fairly good argument except that established law has already determined that government can in fact and has for years been stating that you have the PRIVILEGE of marrying a single member of the opposite sex. You do NOT have the privilege of marrying children, animals, multiple partners, vehicles, or what have you. A homosexual has the exact same privilege to marry a person of the opposite sex that a heterosexual has. It really is that simple.

 

[ConHog]

i cannot read letters this red, please try in urine-yellow, like your pants.

come on now, I just complimented you for being more grown up then some and you respond like that?

Just answer the question. How is prop 8 unconstitutional? I of course know you are delaying because you have nothing, but give it a try anyway.

Here, I'll help... It COULD be argued, and in fact I suspect this is the exact argument that will be made, that not allowing gay marriages is hindering their pursuit of happiness.................... The answer to that of course is that it can also be argued that NO ONE needs be married to be happy.....

COme on LK give me your best response.

dude, i can have one kind of discussion on one thread, and another in another thread.

you want my personal opinion about prop 8 and its constitutionality?

it is a classic case for the slogan "republic, not democracy".

i won't indulge you about the constitutionality of prop 8, you will have to watch what happens.

I know you won't indulge me because you know you have no case.

I'll tell you what will happen. This will get kicked to the SCOTUS eventually, and they will rightfully declare that it does not violate the US CON.

 

[ConHog]

read the OP. the constitutionality of Prop 8 is debated outside of this board, i know this is hard to understand for you, but yes. it happens.

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

Isnt it laughable when he stamps his foot like a petulance little boy having a tantrum?

Isn't if funny that you refuse to defend your idiotic stance 5 times in a row and then cry foul when someone calls you out for it?

I swear you have taken over as my pick of the most ignorant poster on this board, an honor I thought Sangha would hold forever.

Seriously, If I thought a law, or state CON amendment was unconstitutional I would damn sure defend my stance.

 

[L.K.Eder]

come on now, I just complimented you for being more grown up then some and you respond like that?

Just answer the question. How is prop 8 unconstitutional? I of course know you are delaying because you have nothing, but give it a try anyway.

Here, I'll help... It COULD be argued, and in fact I suspect this is the exact argument that will be made, that not allowing gay marriages is hindering their pursuit of happiness.................... The answer to that of course is that it can also be argued that NO ONE needs be married to be happy.....

COme on LK give me your best response.

dude, i can have one kind of discussion on one thread, and another in another thread.

you want my personal opinion about prop 8 and its constitutionality?

it is a classic case for the slogan "republic, not democracy".

i won't indulge you about the constitutionality of prop 8, you will have to watch what happens.

I know you won't indulge me because you know you have no case.

I'll tell you what will happen. This will get kicked to the SCOTUS eventually, and they will rightfully declare that it does not violate the US CON.

so it is debated.

you need to get your facts straight, your temper in control, and you need to know your opponent in "debate". with a failure in all three categories you just make a spectacle out of yourself, again.

here is a hint,

i am german, i don't give a fuck about your constitution, but i learned that the "constitution" is used and abused, that is why there is a desperate need for interpretation, this prop 8 will go down. in time. blacks can sit in front now too, in some parts of the best nation of the woarld.

 

[syrenn]

come on now, I just complimented you for being more grown up then some and you respond like that?

Just answer the question. How is prop 8 unconstitutional? I of course know you are delaying because you have nothing, but give it a try anyway.

Here, I'll help... It COULD be argued, and in fact I suspect this is the exact argument that will be made, that not allowing gay marriages is hindering their pursuit of happiness.................... The answer to that of course is that it can also be argued that NO ONE needs be married to be happy.....

COme on LK give me your best response.

dude, i can have one kind of discussion on one thread, and another in another thread.

you want my personal opinion about prop 8 and its constitutionality?

it is a classic case for the slogan "republic, not democracy".

i won't indulge you about the constitutionality of prop 8, you will have to watch what happens.

I know you won't indulge me because you know you have no case.

I'll tell you what will happen. This will get kicked to the SCOTUS eventually, and they will rightfully declare that it does not violate the US CON.

So you lose with YOUR opinion. Again YOURS is not the only opinion.

 

[syrenn]

Yes it does, because stupidity is not limited to THIS board. Now answer the question.

WHAT PROVISION OF THE US CON DOES THIS LAW VIOLATE????????

Isnt it laughable when he stamps his foot like a petulance little boy having a tantrum?

Isn't if funny that you refuse to defend your idiotic stance 5 times in a row and then cry foul when someone calls you out for it?

I swear you have taken over as my pick of the most ignorant poster on this board, an honor I thought Sangha would hold forever.

Seriously, If I thought a law, or state CON amendment was unconstitutional I would damn sure defend my stance.

Really you called me out? Seems as if you lost your own IN YOUR OPINION argument for yourself.

 

[syrenn]

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

Federal law does though, and has for 14 years.

See and the dumb bitch doesn't even understand that THAT law does not limit marriage to a man and a woman, it instead allows states to decide by themselves. Which sets precedent that this is a STATE issue and therefor not a federal power so bye bye it's not constitutional.

LMAO. Again you grovel to the men. Looking for support again i see.

I know it does not limit marriage to a man and a woman, which is why prop 8 is in court now.

Try again.

 

[ConHog]

dude, i can have one kind of discussion on one thread, and another in another thread.

you want my personal opinion about prop 8 and its constitutionality?

it is a classic case for the slogan "republic, not democracy".

i won't indulge you about the constitutionality of prop 8, you will have to watch what happens.

I know you won't indulge me because you know you have no case.

I'll tell you what will happen. This will get kicked to the SCOTUS eventually, and they will rightfully declare that it does not violate the US CON.

so it is debated.

you need to get your facts straight, your temper in control, and you need to know your opponent in "debate". with a failure in all three categories you just make a spectacle out of yourself, again.

here is a hint,

i am german, i don't give a fuck about your constitution, but i learned that the "constitution" is used and abused, that is why there is a desperate need for interpretation, this prop 8 will go down. in time. blacks can sit in front now too, in some parts of the best nation of the woarld.

Nice strawman. What do blacks have to do with this conversation? Oh that's right nothing, unless they're homosexual.

Again I will ask , what part of the US CON does this proposition violate in your opinion. you can't very well debate that it's unconstitutional without having an opinion on WHY it is unconstitutional, can you?


As far as being angry, well whatever. I'm not angry . I just think it's laughable that people have opinions that they have no evidence to back up how they got there.

Again, this isn't an issue of should gays be allowed to marry. Hell , I say let them, if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them. This is an issue of a judge basing his opinion ENTIRELY on whether he disagrees with the proposal as opposed to whether or not it is unconstitutional and is therefor abusing his power.

Heterosexuals have the EXACT same privilege of marriage that homosexuals do, the EXACT word for word privilege, how is that unconstitutional?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I know you won't indulge me because you know you have no case.

I'll tell you what will happen. This will get kicked to the SCOTUS eventually, and they will rightfully declare that it does not violate the US CON.

so it is debated.

you need to get your facts straight, your temper in control, and you need to know your opponent in "debate". with a failure in all three categories you just make a spectacle out of yourself, again.

here is a hint,

i am german, i don't give a fuck about your constitution, but i learned that the "constitution" is used and abused, that is why there is a desperate need for interpretation, this prop 8 will go down. in time. blacks can sit in front now too, in some parts of the best nation of the woarld.

Nice strawman. What do blacks have to do with this conversation? Oh that's right nothing, unless they're homosexual.

Again I will ask , what part of the US CON does this proposition violate in your opinion. you can't very well debate that it's unconstitutional without having an opinion on WHY it is unconstitutional, can you?


As far as being angry, well whatever. I'm not angry . I just think it's laughable that people have opinions that they have no evidence to back up how they got there.

Again, this isn't an issue of should gays be allowed to marry. Hell , I say let them, if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them. This is an issue of a judge basing his opinion ENTIRELY on whether he disagrees with the proposal as opposed to whether or not it is unconstitutional and is therefor abusing his power.

Heterosexuals have the EXACT same privilege of marriage that homosexuals do, the EXACT word for word privilege, how is that unconstitutional?

lol, what do blacks have to do with the constitution?

hahah, can you get more shallow, puddledweller?

 

[ConHog]

so it is debated.

you need to get your facts straight, your temper in control, and you need to know your opponent in "debate". with a failure in all three categories you just make a spectacle out of yourself, again.

here is a hint,

i am german, i don't give a fuck about your constitution, but i learned that the "constitution" is used and abused, that is why there is a desperate need for interpretation, this prop 8 will go down. in time. blacks can sit in front now too, in some parts of the best nation of the woarld.

Nice strawman. What do blacks have to do with this conversation? Oh that's right nothing, unless they're homosexual.

Again I will ask , what part of the US CON does this proposition violate in your opinion. you can't very well debate that it's unconstitutional without having an opinion on WHY it is unconstitutional, can you?


As far as being angry, well whatever. I'm not angry . I just think it's laughable that people have opinions that they have no evidence to back up how they got there.

Again, this isn't an issue of should gays be allowed to marry. Hell , I say let them, if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them. This is an issue of a judge basing his opinion ENTIRELY on whether he disagrees with the proposal as opposed to whether or not it is unconstitutional and is therefor abusing his power.

Heterosexuals have the EXACT same privilege of marriage that homosexuals do, the EXACT word for word privilege, how is that unconstitutional?

lol, what do blacks have to do with the constitution?

hahah, can you get more shallow, puddledweller?

what do blacks have to do with this conversation =/= what do blacks have to do with the Constitution.

I see I was wrong, I will now add you to the list of idiotic and dishonest left wing mouth breathers.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Nice strawman. What do blacks have to do with this conversation? Oh that's right nothing, unless they're homosexual.

Again I will ask , what part of the US CON does this proposition violate in your opinion. you can't very well debate that it's unconstitutional without having an opinion on WHY it is unconstitutional, can you?


As far as being angry, well whatever. I'm not angry . I just think it's laughable that people have opinions that they have no evidence to back up how they got there.

Again, this isn't an issue of should gays be allowed to marry. Hell , I say let them, if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them. This is an issue of a judge basing his opinion ENTIRELY on whether he disagrees with the proposal as opposed to whether or not it is unconstitutional and is therefor abusing his power.

Heterosexuals have the EXACT same privilege of marriage that homosexuals do, the EXACT word for word privilege, how is that unconstitutional?

lol, what do blacks have to do with the constitution?

hahah, can you get more shallow, puddledweller?

what do blacks have to do with this conversation =/= what do blacks have to do with the Constitution.

I see I was wrong, I will now add you to the list of idiotic and dishonest left wing mouth breathers.

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

 

[ConHog]

lol, what do blacks have to do with the constitution?

hahah, can you get more shallow, puddledweller?

what do blacks have to do with this conversation =/= what do blacks have to do with the Constitution.

I see I was wrong, I will now add you to the list of idiotic and dishonest left wing mouth breathers.

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.