Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

[
You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

The reality is that you only inject yourself in the argument when homosexuals want equal access to legal marriage.

You want to end legal marriage? Go for it.

But you arguing against extending equal rights to gay couples because you are against legal marriage is just an argument for discrimination.

LOL, I want all citizens to be treated the same by government, which you call "discrimination."

But what you "want" is akin to finding leprechaun gold, civilly married guy.

Whether that is true or not, your claim you want to end discrimination is a flat out lie, you want to expand it. I want to eliminate it.

 

[Skylar]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of anyone's anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

 

[Skylar]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The minority are to be protected? That from the guy who advocates people who put everyone's bills on the backs of a tiny minority. I'm not feeling protected...

Um, how are gays getting married in any way robbing you of any protection?

Or is your post just spectacularly irrelevant to this topic?

 

[Syriusly]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else..

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

Repeating what you pulled out of your ass. Now we're getting somewhere...

Repeating it because its true- and you just want to pretend ignore it.

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

I am sure that Mildred Loving would be glad that you weren't there at the time arguing that she and her husband shouldn't be allowed to marry, because that would be just less discrimination- instead you would be arguing that the Loving's should wait until all marriage is abolished.

Because allowing the Lovings to marry would just be 'further discrimination'.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

More accurately, gays are challenging the restrictions placed on marriage as a violation of the 14th and 5th amendments. As the restrictions themselves must be constitutionally valid. They must serve a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Romer v. Evans reiterated this explicitly in reference to laws targeting gays.

And gay marriage bans can't meet either standard.

Everyone has the right to be left alone, no one has the right to demand anything from anyone, including government. Those are completely different things.

Everyone has the right to demand equal treatment from the law.

No- everyone does not have the right to be left alone- tell that to anyone in San Quentin.

 

[kaz]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of anyone's anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

Government will never treat it's citizens equally, You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

We know which side of history you are on...

 

[kaz]

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The minority are to be protected? That from the guy who advocates people who put everyone's bills on the backs of a tiny minority. I'm not feeling protected...

Um, how are gays getting married in any way robbing you of any protection?

Or is your post just spectacularly irrelevant to this topic?

Non-sequitur

 

[kaz]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else..

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

Repeating what you pulled out of your ass. Now we're getting somewhere...

Repeating it because its true- and you just want to pretend ignore it.

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

I am sure that Mildred Loving would be glad that you weren't there at the time arguing that she and her husband shouldn't be allowed to marry, because that would be just less discrimination- instead you would be arguing that the Loving's should wait until all marriage is abolished.

Because allowing the Lovings to marry would just be 'further discrimination'.

Snarky, repetitious, inane and without a coherent point. You run the table on this one...

 

[Skylar]

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The minority are to be protected? That from the guy who advocates people who put everyone's bills on the backs of a tiny minority. I'm not feeling protected...

Um, how are gays getting married in any way robbing you of any protection?

Or is your post just spectacularly irrelevant to this topic?

Non-sequitur

So....your post was just spectacularly irrelevant to the topic.

We've done this dance before, Kaz. I'm discussing gay marriage. If you want to discuss something else, start a thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of anyone's anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"..

LOL....black men should not be given the same right to vote because we are not giving that right to women.

And women should not be given the same right to vote as men because children are not given that right.

You are arguing that gay couples should not be given the same legal protections as hetero couples because you think that all such legal protections are discriminatory.

The same argument could apply to voting rights.

Should we have never allowed women to vote until everyone of every age was allowed to vote?

 

[elektra]

Gays getting married, and then adopting heterosexual children is only the concern of democrats.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else..

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

Repeating what you pulled out of your ass. Now we're getting somewhere...

Repeating it because its true- and you just want to pretend ignore it.

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

I am sure that Mildred Loving would be glad that you weren't there at the time arguing that she and her husband shouldn't be allowed to marry, because that would be just less discrimination- instead you would be arguing that the Loving's should wait until all marriage is abolished.

Because allowing the Lovings to marry would just be 'further discrimination'.

Snarky, repetitious, inane and without a coherent point. You run the table on this one...

LOL- in other words you can't figure out how to respond without looking like a total idiot.

Repeating it because its true- and you just want to pretend ignore it.

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

I am sure that Mildred Loving would be glad that you weren't there at the time arguing that she and her husband shouldn't be allowed to marry, because that would be just less discrimination- instead you would be arguing that the Loving's should wait until all marriage is abolished.

Because allowing the Lovings to marry would just be 'further discrimination'.

 

[kaz]

Everyone has the right to demand equal treatment from the law.

Not according to you, you're demanding gay couples be treated differently from straights. I am demanding everyone actually be treated the same under the law. It's a hoot you don't grasp that and keep telling me you support equal treatment when in fact you demand discrimination.

No- everyone does not have the right to be left alone- tell that to anyone in San Quentin.

The people in San Quentin learned what happens when they violate people's right to be left alone, didn't they? Damn you are dumb, you thought that was an argument for you? The obvious is so far beyond your grasp.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays getting married, and then adopting heterosexual children is only the concern of democrats.

Hmmm yet most of the people opposed to homosexual couples adopting are Republicans.

And how exactly do you test children to determine if they are heterosexual before putting them up for adoption?

 

[kaz]

So....your post was just spectacularly irrelevant to the topic.

No, your reply was spectacular not a logical response to what I said. Hence the term, non-sequitur...

We've done this dance before, Kaz. I'm discussing gay marriage. If you want to discuss something else, start a thread.

Yes, we have done this dance, you repeatedly inform me I am only allowed to discuss government solutions to problems. I understand you fine, I just reject it as crap.

 

[Skylar]

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

We're not going to abolish all government recognition of marriage. That's not a plausible outcome for this case.

Extending recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians, however, is entirely plausible. I'd say even likely.

We know which side of history you are on...

Of course. The side that recognizes marriage for both gays and straights, obviously.

 

[Syriusly]

Everyone has the right to demand equal treatment from the law.

Not according to you, you're demanding gay couples be treated differently from straights

No I am demanding that same gender couples be treated exactly the same as opposite gender couples.

Bill and Bob- exactly the same in every way as Bill and Barbara- except that Barbara is a woman and Bob is not.

Bill and Barbara can get legally married, Bill and Bob cannot- they are not treated legally the same.

 

[Skylar]

So....your post was just spectacularly irrelevant to the topic.

No, your reply was spectaturlary not a logical response to what I said. Hence the term, non-sequitur...

We've done this dance before, Kaz. I'm discussing gay marriage. If you want to discuss something else, start a thread.

Yes, we have done this dance, you repeatedly inform me I am only allowed to discuss government solutions to problems. I understand you fine, I just reject it as crap.

What you said had nothing to do with this thread. Thus, it was itself a non-sequitur.

 

[kaz]

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of anyone's anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"..

LOL....black men should not be given the same right to vote because we are not giving that right to women.

And women should not be given the same right to vote as men because children are not given that right.

You are arguing that gay couples should not be given the same legal protections as hetero couples because you think that all such legal protections are discriminatory.

The same argument could apply to voting rights.

Should we have never allowed women to vote until everyone of every age was allowed to vote?

I'm not interested in defending what the voices in your head told you. Can you keep posting what they say though? It's pretty funny shit.

 

[kaz]

Blacks will never be accepted as equals, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?" Women will never be allowed to vote, why bother? You have anything "relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?"

We're not going to abolish all government recognition of marriage. That's not a plausible outcome for this case.

Extending recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians, however, is entirely plausible. I'd say even likely.

We know which side of history you are on...

Of course. The side that recognizes marriage for both gays and straights, obviously.

Swish...