Prop 8 Showdown

[ConHog]

Again, laughable. As that is all you usually have.

Another sign of YOUR stupidity, if name calling is all I have than why is it that I have given you reasons I think this proposition is constitutional while you have done nothing EXCEPT name call? Defend your position you dumb skank.

Please show me where I call you names? You do realize that it is so much fun getting under your skin and poking your arrogance.

The only reason you have given is YOUR opinion.

Again

Now it IS the job of the courts to determine if a law violates the CON, but in this case I don't think it does because the CON doesn't mention marriage at all. Judges are not supposed to add things to the CON, even though they do all the time.

Your opinion: I dont think

If others did not have a different opinion it would not be in the courts now.

Try again.

Which is more than you have given. All you EVER do is call people names and tell them theyre wrong without offering a single goddamn reason of WHY you think they're wrong. There is absolutely a reason why you haven't posted what part of the CON this proposition violates and that reason is you're a fucking idiot who isn't capable of figuring anything out.

 

[syrenn]

it doesn't ruin my day, i just find it odd. And I want it clear here that I personally couldn't care less if you get married or not, I am just pointing out that this proposition does not violate the CON. Personally I wonder why of all the things CA has to worry about right now that voters were concerned about THIS though.

Again YOUR opinion. It would not be in the courts now if there was not a different opinion about prop 8 being unconstitutional. Deal with the fact that other people have differing opinions then you do.

 

[Famus]

The vote for prop 8 was unconstitutional. You can't decide someone's rights through a vote. If they would have left black rights to a vote in the South no blacks would be free in this country. The same applies to homosexuals. If you don't like gay marriages then don't marry a dude. The majority shouldn't take away the rights of the minority.

 

[ConHog]

The vote for prop 8 was unconstitutional. You can't decide someone's rights through a vote. If they would have left black rights to a vote in the South no blacks would be free in this country. The same applies to homosexuals. If you don't like gay marriages then don't marry a dude. The majority shouldn't take away the rights of the minority.

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

 

[syrenn]

The vote for prop 8 was unconstitutional. You can't decide someone's rights through a vote. If they would have left black rights to a vote in the South no blacks would be free in this country. The same applies to homosexuals. If you don't like gay marriages then don't marry a dude. The majority shouldn't take away the rights of the minority.

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

And the courts will decide if gays have that RIGHT.

Try again.

 

[bodecea]

The vote for prop 8 was unconstitutional. You can't decide someone's rights through a vote. If they would have left black rights to a vote in the South no blacks would be free in this country. The same applies to homosexuals. If you don't like gay marriages then don't marry a dude. The majority shouldn't take away the rights of the minority.

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

 

[Jon]

Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a contract.

 

[ConHog]

The vote for prop 8 was unconstitutional. You can't decide someone's rights through a vote. If they would have left black rights to a vote in the South no blacks would be free in this country. The same applies to homosexuals. If you don't like gay marriages then don't marry a dude. The majority shouldn't take away the rights of the minority.

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer. Actually I should restate that, beings as this is a privilege the government COULD decide to no longer offer it to anyone. That would be legal.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a contract.

Loving V. Virginia disagrees with you.

 

[Yurt]

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

Syrenn shut up child, unless and until you can form your OWN opinion on a subject , just keep your mouth shut.

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer. Actually I should restate that, beings as this is a privilege the government COULD decide to no longer offer it to anyone. That would be legal.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

the 14th P&I applies to the states....not the federal government....

hence DOMA

 

[ConHog]

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

 

[ConHog]

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.

But keep in mind, if you classify marriage as a privilege, there is nothing preventing government from taking it away from anyone they feel like....anyone.

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer. Actually I should restate that, beings as this is a privilege the government COULD decide to no longer offer it to anyone. That would be legal.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

the 14th P&I applies to the states....not the federal government....

hence DOMA

What? I don't think so............

Section 1. 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.

It applies the federal government as well as state governments DOMA is constitutional because it leaves marriage to the states where they belong. If DOMA had either made all states recognize gay marriage or disallowed gay marriages out right, it would have been unconstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.

But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Marriage is a basic civil right....

 

[syrenn]

Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer.

Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

LOL

And she agrees with me. All i need to say is IN MY OPINION porp 8 is worng.

 

[ConHog]

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.

But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Marriage is a basic civil right....

How do you figure it is gender discrimination. Are you being denied something that men have? Men can marry someone of the opposite sex, so to can women, no gender discrimination there.

Please read the CON, the ONLY rights guaranteed in it are those enumerated within it, if it's not listed it's a privilege and not a right. The "right" of marriage is listed nowhere in the CON. Therefor it is NOT a right guaranteed by the CON. That's why there is an Amendment procedure. Before the 14th black didn't have ANY rights in this country, why? Because they weren't as of yet protected under the CON. Same with women suffrage and the 19th. Before it was passed there was no right.

Good lucking getting a CON Amendment for gay rights.

 

[ConHog]

That is not equal rights...having the government pick who you can or cannot marry if both are consenting adults. BTW, that same argument was used in Loving V. Virginia by the Virginia attorneys. Didn't work for them either.

And Prop H8 violates equal protection under the law, quite blatantly too. It is legalized Segregation and those who support it are Segregationists.

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

LOL

And she agrees with me. All i need to say is IN MY OPINION porp 8 is worng.

you are a stupid child wrong =/= unconstitutional . I think it's wrong to, i think gays should be able to marry, but I also recognize that under the US CON society has the right to vote on such measures and CA has spoken and this prop is CON.

 

[syrenn]

Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.

Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.

LOL

And she agrees with me. All i need to say is IN MY OPINION porp 8 is worng.

you are a stupid child wrong =/= unconstitutional . I think it's wrong to, i think gays should be able to marry, but I also recognize that under the US CON society has the right to vote on such measures and CA has spoken and this prop is CON.

And now that decision is being decided in the courts if upholding porp 8 IS unconstitutional. Rather simple don't you think.

 

[ConHog]

LOL

And she agrees with me. All i need to say is IN MY OPINION porp 8 is worng.

you are a stupid child wrong =/= unconstitutional . I think it's wrong to, i think gays should be able to marry, but I also recognize that under the US CON society has the right to vote on such measures and CA has spoken and this prop is CON.

And now that decision is being decided in the courts if upholding porp 8 IS unconstitutional. Rather simple don't you think.

Well you would k now about simple, I mean you claim it's unconstitutional but you can't come up with a single reason why YOU think that. Instead you want to cry that I don't allow others to have their opinion despite the fact that I just respected bodocea's opinion because she has valid reasons for believing that.

It's not your opinion on anything that I disrespect, it's your complete lack of ability to defend your position on anything beyond calling names and accusing others of bullying when they present actual facts to back up their opinions if they disagree with you while cheering on complete morons who bring nothing to a discussion as long as they agree with you.

 

[syrenn]

you are a stupid child wrong =/= unconstitutional . I think it's wrong to, i think gays should be able to marry, but I also recognize that under the US CON society has the right to vote on such measures and CA has spoken and this prop is CON.

And now that decision is being decided in the courts if upholding porp 8 IS unconstitutional. Rather simple don't you think.

Well you would k now about simple, I mean you claim it's unconstitutional but you can't come up with a single reason why YOU think that. Instead you want to cry that I don't allow others to have their opinion despite the fact that I just respected bodocea's opinion because she has valid reasons for believing that.

It's not your opinion on anything that I disrespect, it's your complete lack of ability to defend your position on anything beyond calling names and accusing others of bullying when they present actual facts to back up their opinions if they disagree with you while cheering on complete morons who bring nothing to a discussion as long as they agree with you.

Wrong. The constitution does not say one way or the other if a marriage is between a man or a woman. The 14th does protect gay rights.

Really? Seems as if it get it over on you all the time without demanding that MY opinion is RIGHT.

Again..shall we look at who calls names? You or me? Again you lose.

And where do I INSIST I am right? I gave my opinion.

Sorry your a foul mouthed bully who gets laughed at

Your opinion and my opinion don't matter. Again the courts will decide. And then we will see who is right.

Try again.