A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes

[Silhouette]

Nobody suggested any justice recuse themselves in the Miranda rulings, or the Brown v. Board of Education rulings because one of the justices may have been arrested at one time or represented/persecuted/ruled on a criminal case or represented the accused or that they were all educated men at the time.
To suggest recusal now smells of sheer desperation.
Good.

Yes, when someone puts a sock in your mouth and ties duck tape around it so they can get at children in orphanges legally with their lifestyle that includes worshipping a messiah who sodomized minor teen boys, the word "desperation" might apply. Certainly the word "protest" might apply at the polls in 2016.

Kiss it goodbye democrats. Your rainbow-colored pied pipers just led 1/3 of your party right into the GOP camp for goodsies. I wouldn't give one red cent to the democratic campaign funds at this point. That's like betting on a horse with three legs to win the race. No thank you. My mommy didn't drop me on my head when I was born..

 

[mdk]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

 

[Skylar]

Nobody suggested any justice recuse themselves in the Miranda rulings, or the Brown v. Board of Education rulings because one of the justices may have been arrested at one time or represented/persecuted/ruled on a criminal case or represented the accused or that they were all educated men at the time.

To suggest recusal now smells of sheer desperation.

Good.

Yes, when someone puts a sock in your mouth and ties duck tape around it so they can get at children in orphanges legally with their lifestyle that includes worshipping a messiah who sodomized minor teen boys, the word "desperation" might apply.

Yeah, but you hallucinated all of that. Why should anyone else give a shit about your delusions? Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about. Virtually your every argument has been disproven as meaningless pseudo-legal gibber jabber. And your predictions were laughably, comically wrong.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Skylar]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

Of course.....Sil is in full meltdown mode. I expect panty shitting hysterics about impeachment, tyranny, and treason within 48 hours. Eventually followed by another excuse why Sil has to stop posting.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, when someone puts a sock in your mouth and ties duck tape around it so they can get at children in orphanges legally with their lifestyle that includes worshipping a messiah who sodomized minor teen boys, the word "desperation" might apply. Certainly the word "protest" might apply at the polls in 2016.

Leave your sex life out of this.

Kiss it goodbye democrats. Your rainbow-colored pied pipers just led 1/3 of your party right into the GOP camp for goodsies.

Keep the comedy coming.

I wouldn't give one red cent to the democratic campaign funds at this point.

I doubt you have one red cent to spare.

That's like betting on a horse with three legs to win the race. No thank you. My mommy didn't drop me on my head when I was born..

Oh brother.

 

[AceRothstein]

 

[mdk]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

Of course.....Sil is in full meltdown mode. I expect panty shitting hysterics about impeachment, tyranny, and treason within 48 hours. Followed by another excuse why Sil has to stop posting.

This was all predicted months ago. We should've made a Bingo sheet.

 

[Skylar]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

Of course.....Sil is in full meltdown mode. I expect panty shitting hysterics about impeachment, tyranny, and treason within 48 hours. Followed by another excuse why Sil has to stop posting.

This was all predicted months ago. We should've made a Bingo sheet.

We predicted the outcome of the case months ago. We predicted the split. We predicted who would write the ruling. We predicted the basis of the ruling. We predicated the cases that would be cited as precedent.

And in every instance, Sil insisted he knew better.

So, um.....how'd that work out?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

************
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."
Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

Nope. As not all views are equally valid under the constitution.

A view that excludes another is in violation of the Constitution.

I am talking about views that people can practice on their own without imposing on others.
Those should be equal.

So if someone who believes in nationalizing health care can achieve this through their own independent network without imposing through govt, then they can still practice their beliefs without violating constitutional equality of beliefs in free market choices in health care and personal decisions NOT to abuse drugs or commit crimes that incur medical costs, for example, as part of the responsibility that public taxpayers should have to pay for.

I am arguing these beliefs should be protected equally and thus kept out of govt except where people agree:
* gay marriage vs traditional marriage -- either agree on how to set up a policy or keep it out of the state
* health care through govt or health care through free market -- either agree how to set up a public option by free choice, or keep this out of courts and legislatures and quit abusing gov to force a decision where people fundamentally disagree due to beliefs that should be respected, not overruled by govt or political force
* death penalty/retributive justice vs. lifelong restitution/restorative justice -- give taxpayers a choice of how to fund better corrections and prevention of criminal justice issues, so that more resources can be reinvested in health care and education instead of taxing the public multiple times because of ongoing waste, abuse and crime

 

[Skylar]

Ka

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

************
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."
Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

Nope. As not all views are equally valid under the constitution.

A view that excludes another is in violation of the Constitution.

Nope. As not all views are constitutionally valid.

 

[mdk]

I am shocked "shadow bias" hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[G.T.]

Even emily is butthurt that gay marriage became legal.

All is good in the world today. The wicked get their just desserts and the truly good people grin as kharma does its thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

Of course.....Sil is in full meltdown mode. I expect panty shitting hysterics about impeachment, tyranny, and treason within 48 hours. Followed by another excuse why Sil has to stop posting.

This was all predicted months ago. We should've made a Bingo sheet.

We predicted the outcome of the case months ago. We predicted the split. We predicted who would write the ruling. We predicted the basis of the ruling. We predicated the cases that would be cited as precedent.

And in every instance, Sil insisted he knew better.

So, um.....how'd that work out?

If you knew the conflict would not be resolved, all the more reason to set up a better way to address it.
Why let the train wreck if you see it coming. That is negligent to allow conflicting beliefs, that we KNOW
people are not going to change, to be decided by govt officials in this manner where one side is going to end up discriminated against.

When I first saw this was happening, I started an outreach campaign for mediation and consensus
to stop this unconstitutional practice of imposing beliefs through govt.

So the minute I understood this was wrong, to impose one belief over another by govt force,
I renounced it as unconstitutional and did not "go along" with this practice.

I am not going to be part of the bullying problem going on in this country, in our media legal and democratic system.

The Greens have figured out the consensus model, so others can learn from example why it is needed
to protect people's views equally and legally. The bullying model by majority rule or political force
does not protect people's beliefs equally. If you gamble on this system, you use it, you risk losing your rights.
So that is where I started advocating for conflict resolution mediation and consensus to protect the "consent of the governed" as the standard of law and Constitutional ethics. Because of cases like this that cannot be "decided" by govt imposing one belief over another without violating Constitutional equal protections.

I saw it, too, but protested the entire approach as flawed to begin with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Even emily is butthurt that gay marriage became legal.

All is good in the world today. The wicked get their just desserts and the truly good people grin as kharma does its thing.

Hi G.T. Wrong! I support gay marriage and argue it has always been legal under religious freedom.
Anything that bans gay marriage is unconstitutional.

What "hurts" me is people abusing govt to impose their beliefs over someone else.
And this INCLUDES abusing govt to impose bans on gay marriage that were equally unconstitutional.

G.T. are you equally upset if one side or the other is not included in govt policy?
Or do you only care for the defense of beliefs that you agree with?

And you do not care to defend any views except the ones you agree with?
is this what you are admitting?

So G.T. does it BOTHER you that even if I don't agree with opponents to gay marriage,
that I would actually SUPPORT the beliefs of people I don't even agree with, because those
BELIEFS are equally protected under law?

Does it BOTHER you that I equally defend prolife beliefs as prochoice beliefs,
because ALL beliefs should be equal under law. I equally defend beliefs in gay marriage
as beliefs in traditional marriage. I equally defend beliefs in the death penalty and in alternatives.
I equally defend the beliefs in nationalized health care with a public option to participate and beliefs in free market health care without govt mandates.

Does that hurt your HEAD or your BUTT to think about equality on that level?
That might actually include people's beliefs we disagree with?
Because ALL beliefs should be equally protected under law by
the First and Fourteenth Amendment?

G.T. do you think with your head or your butt?

Which end of you does this hurt to consider equal inclusion of all beliefs,
whether we agree disagree or conflict.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ka
Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

Nope. As not all views are equally valid under the constitution.

A view that excludes another is in violation of the Constitution.

Nope. As not all views are constitutionally valid.

Dear Skylar and G.T.
A. would you say that my view of including and protecting BOTH beliefs equally
is more constitutionally valid because it is more neutral, objectively inclusive and
respects the other two views that otherwise exclude each other
B. and the two views that would impose theirs over the other are
not fully constitutional because they violate the equal beliefs or creed of the other,
while my views do not. My view protects and respects both sides. Does yours meet this same standard?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

The election is in november.
Inauguration in january.
Wtf does december have to do with it?

Bigots have fascinating minds.

Apparently you lack the definition of bigot:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you dislike gays. It means you don't accept that two men can marry, they are two totally different things. Why are liberals so stupid?

 

[Skylar]

We've gone from Kagan to Milk...all in the first page. lol.

Of course.....Sil is in full meltdown mode. I expect panty shitting hysterics about impeachment, tyranny, and treason within 48 hours. Followed by another excuse why Sil has to stop posting.

This was all predicted months ago. We should've made a Bingo sheet.

We predicted the outcome of the case months ago. We predicted the split. We predicted who would write the ruling. We predicted the basis of the ruling. We predicated the cases that would be cited as precedent.

And in every instance, Sil insisted he knew better.

So, um.....how'd that work out?

If you knew the conflict would not be resolved, all the more reason to set up a better way to address it.

The conflict was resolved. And exactly how we predicted it would be.

Same sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states.

Why let the train wreck if you see it coming. That is negligent to allow conflicting beliefs, that we KNOW
people are not going to change, to be decided by govt officials in this manner where one side is going to end up discriminated against.

When I first saw this was happening, I started an outreach campaign for mediation and consensus
to stop this unconstitutional practice of imposing beliefs through govt.

What you call 'imposing beliefs through government' is call democracy and adjudication. Its impossible to create a law without imposing a belief. Same with judicial decisions.

What you insist can never happen......is what always happens. And is the nature of adjudication: resolving conflict by ruling on the merits of the case.

 

[bodecea]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

Will you be as right about that as you were about the SCOTUS decision?

 

[Skylar]

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

Nope. As not all views are equally valid under the constitution.

A view that excludes another is in violation of the Constitution.

Nope. As not all views are constitutionally valid.

Dear Skylar and G.T.
A. would you say that my view of including and protecting BOTH beliefs equally
is more constitutionally valid because it is more neutral, objectively inclusive and
respects the other two views that otherwise exclude each other

Both beliefs aren't equally valid constitutionally. So why would we protect a constitutionally invalid belief?

A beliefs validity legally isn't based on its existence. But its compatibility with the law, precedent and the constitution. Gay marriage bans failed that standard.

B. and the two views that would impose theirs over the other are
not fully constitutional because they violate the equal beliefs or creed of the other,
while my views do not. My view protects and respects both sides. Does yours meet this same standard?

You're simply wrong. Its entirely possible to impose beliefs through government. Every law is just such an act. As is every court ruling.

 

[G.T.]

Even emily is butthurt that gay marriage became legal.

All is good in the world today. The wicked get their just desserts and the truly good people grin as kharma does its thing.

Hi G.T. Wrong! I support gay marriage and argue it has always been legal under religious freedom.
Anything that bans gay marriage is unconstitutional.

What "hurts" me is people abusing govt to impose their beliefs over someone else.
And this INCLUDES abusing govt to impose bans on gay marriage that were equally unconstitutional.

G.T. are you equally upset if one side or the other is not included in govt policy?
Or do you only care for the defense of beliefs that you agree with?

And you do not care to defend any views except the ones you agree with?
is this what you are admitting?

So G.T. does it BOTHER you that even if I don't agree with opponents to gay marriage,
that I would actually SUPPORT the beliefs of people I don't even agree with, because those
BELIEFS are equally protected under law?

Does it BOTHER you that I equally defend prolife beliefs as prochoice beliefs,
because ALL beliefs should be equal under law. I equally defend beliefs in gay marriage
as beliefs in traditional marriage. I equally defend beliefs in the death penalty and in alternatives.
I equally defend the beliefs in nationalized health care with a public option to participate and beliefs in free market health care without govt mandates.

Does that hurt your HEAD or your BUTT to think about equality on that level?
That might actually include people's beliefs we disagree with?
Because ALL beliefs should be equally protected under law by
the First and Fourteenth Amendment?

G.T. do you think with your head or your butt?

Which end of you does this hurt to consider equal inclusion of all beliefs,
whether we agree disagree or conflict.

I think that you're a daft person with a small brain.

There is such thing as right and wrong, universal right and wrong.

You want the wrong and the right to both get their way, and thats 6million levels of fucking retarded.

Gay marriage being constitutionally LEGAL is right. Those who disagree with that are WRONG. Those opposed can be fucking busy bodies and snub their noses at it all they'd like, the good guys won today.

Your phony narrow minded "compromise without government" charade is short sighted, naive and just plain stupid.


Further, your obsession to carry on stupid is hilarious.

"Those who believe in universal healthcare can do it privately and without the government and those who disagree need not participate."

^^^^ do you know how insanely retarded that comment was?

First off, if its not EVERYONE its not UNIVERSAL. a numbnuts could have told you that one.

Secondly - the idea behind "universal" is that we dont let our weakest or least able to pay for cancer treatments simply DIE, and the only way for us to accomplish that is for EVERYONE to have skin in the game whether theyre basasses who illogically think theyll never use care or not.

100% of people will use care. Fact.
100% of peoples pocketbooks are effected by morons who "choose" not to have insurance and then get sick. Fact.

Your daft little school girl understanding of these things is disgusting.