Liberal FASCISM in California

[Shogun]

Where is their right? Their right is in the constitution where it says nothing whatsoever about marriage. The only constitutional way to deny the right of gays to marry is to make a amendment to the US constitution. Which isn't authorized to deny rights. So it isn't possible, constitutionally.

Segregate alcohol? What are you smoking?

yes. Dry counties. What the hell do you think "DRY" means?

and, it's fun to just say "in the constitution" but I'm afraid you are going to have to actually quote exactly what you think grants open liberty on marriage. Or, you can act like larkin and cry like a ***** when I'm asking for such clarification.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Although this case was decided as a matter of California law, it can instructive for the rest of us. What makes it difficult to argue coherently is the absolutely schizophrenic view of marriage by conservatives. On the one hand, marriage is so minor and trivial that the states are free to regulate it without judicial oversight. On the other hand, it's the cornerstone of civilization, which will collapse if we allow gays to participate (though we never hear how that would happen).

Even if marriage is a state matter, the state cannot act arbitrarily. If gay citizens are treated differently, the equal protection clause requires a reasonable state interest for doing so. We have heard all of the apocalyptical predictions to justify the ban, but none have occurred in Massachusetts since it legalized gay marriage. I have asked those who oppose gay marriage to give me a rational basis, but no one has offered anything other than hyperbole and fear mongering.

Whenever the majority seeks to impose it’s will on a minority using the force of law, courts have been authorized to protect the fundamental rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The courts overturned school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education), interracial marriage bans (Loving v. Virginia) and criminal punishment for homosexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). Each of those originated from democratic processes, and each involved the irrational suppression of a minority by the majority. Judicial review to protect fundamental liberty is a core concept of constitutional liberty. Those who object to it should seek refuge in a fascist state instead of trying to convert America into one.

What a load of crap. If anybody here is schizophrenic or fascist, you liberals are. On one hand you argue for sexual freedom so you can shack up together without some "meaningless piece of paper". On the other hand you argue for gay marriage as though gay people couldn't possibly manage to live together without that golden "piece of paper".

What sleazy hypocrits you liberals are. You totally ignore the fact that in the end you are undermining and demeaning marriage on both fronts. And on both fronts, who gets to suffer the consequences? Children. You liberals don't give a flying **** what happens to the children. In both situations - gay marriage and shacking up - children wind up without fathers and a stable long-term normal family life.

That's one reason I totally DESPISE liberals….they have already done a number on our American children....and they continue to do so without compunction.

And your "equal protection clause" rationalization does not hold water…..unless you are willing to equally protect every single minority group in existence….

so...since you didn't answer the question before...I'll ask again….would you approve of a father marrying his adult daughter or adult son? Or the 3 of them marrying together? Or are you going to deny these "minority" groups their ceeeevil rights?

 

[Ravi]

I said drink, you moron.

Larkin asked you a very pointed question and you can't even wrap your brain around the concept enough to formulate an answer.

 

[Larkinn]

oh THOSE people... Gosh, like they matter outside your goofy ******* judical activism.

For eight years, California’s 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor.[1] On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. [2]

This measure is also known as the Knight Initiative, after its author, the late state senator William "Pete" Knight. It may also be cited as the California Defense of Marriage Act.

Despite the act's brevity — just 14 words — its effect provoked debate long after its passage. An amendment to the state constitution with identical wording is now pending approval for voters to consider in the November 4, 2008 general election.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

Thats nice. Perhaps you've been asleep for the past 8 years, but gay marriage has become much more acceptable since then. I'll be laughing at you when the constitutional amendment fails.

according to your bench legislating opinion.

According to the people whose opinions matter. You sure do like to talk shit about other peoples opinions, but guess what? When it comes to judges interpreting law, their opinion matters, yours doesn't. Your opinion matters even less when it becomes apparent you don't even know what the gay marriage ban is. Signed by the governor, eh?

yea, DUMBFUCK. We sure did see THAT work out exactly that way in 04, didnt we? Indeed, you didn't even read yesterdays' USA Today evidence I cited, did ya? figures.

Their OPINION that it MAY cause trouble? Not that we are talking about that at all.

Indeed, which is why I schooled you with Clarence Thomas quotes on that exact same decision. Magic didn't happen in Brown v Board.

Then it should be easy to quote the 14th amendment. Why are you running away from this Shogun?

I realize that it makes your cockles tingle when looking back but you still can't answer WHERE IF THE **** IS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE IN THE CON.

I've anwsered this about 5 times now.

The FACT remains that we both know that this is not how the Founding Fathers intended the gov to work.

They didn't intend judges to interpret the law? Really? I think that Marshall probably had a better idea of what the founders intended than you do. Them being alive and all when he was on the bench.

If you can't respond with more than shit talking then perhaps you should take 3 more pages to cry about others throwing ad homenems at you.

Wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Shit talking? Because I said your pov was asinine? Cry me a river.

yet, according to Ravi's logic, EVERYONE has the right to buy alcoholic beverages regardless of local legislation passed that says otherwise. It really doesn't shock me that you didn't catch that.

No, actually thats just you misinterpreting her logic. Surprise, surprise.

Perhaps you want to take that penis out from your mouth and scroll up to discover who brought up alcohol and prohibition. Indeed, facts have never been your strong suit so I fully expect you to throw another monkey turd while crying about ad hominems.

She brought it up as a valid point. Your the moron who talked about segregating alcohol

 

[Larkinn]

What a load of crap. If anybody here is schizophrenic or fascist, you liberals are. On one hand you argue for sexual freedom so you can shack up together without some "meaningless piece of paper". On the other hand you argue for gay marriage as though gay people couldn't possibly manage to live together without that golden "piece of paper".

Yes...arguing for sexual freedom is fascist. Because we all know how much the fascists love individual choice.

And yeah. People should be free to **** and not get married if they want. People should be free to get married if they want. Its a little something called individual choice.

What sleazy hypocrits you liberals are. You totally ignore the fact that in the end you are undermining and demeaning marriage on both fronts.

No, actually thats your homophobic, bullshit, unsubstantiated opinion. Doesn't really qualify as a fact.

And on both fronts, who gets to suffer the consequences? Children. You liberals don't give a flying **** what happens to the children. In both situations - gay marriage and shacking up - children wind up without fathers and a stable long-term normal family life.

Its called using contraception. Oh wait, you don't want to teach people all about it so for you ******* and having babies are the same thing. Maybe thats why your so uptight.

That's one reason I totally DESPISE liberals….they have already done a number on our American children....and they continue to do so without compunction.

Yeah, its so much worse now that we have to go to school with black kids. Whoops.

And your "equal protection clause" rationalization does not hold water…..unless you are willing to equally protect every single minority group in existence….

Yeah, I'm willing to do that.

so...since you didn't answer the question before...I'll ask again….would you approve of a father marrying his adult daughter or adult son? Or the 3 of them marrying together? Or are you going to deny these "minority" groups their ceeeevil rights?

Yes. I don't care what adults do if they consent.

 

[Dogger]

What a load of crap. If anybody here is schizophrenic or fascist, you liberals are. On one hand you argue for sexual freedom so you can shack up together without some "meaningless piece of paper". On the other hand you argue for gay marriage as though gay people couldn't possibly manage to live together without that golden "piece of paper".

Both straights and gays should be free to marry or shack up as a matter of individual conscience. Why do you want to permit only one option for gays?

What sleazy hypocrits you liberals are. You totally ignore the fact that in the end you are undermining and demeaning marriage on both fronts. And on both fronts, who gets to suffer the consequences? Children. You liberals don't give a flying **** what happens to the children. In both situations - gay marriage and shacking up - children wind up without fathers and a stable long-term normal family life.

What about the children that currently live in gay couple homes? Why should society tell them that their family isn't acceptable? Why should their families be less stable? How does this hurt children who are living in hetero homes?

That's one reason I totally DESPISE liberals….they have already done a number on our American children....and they continue to do so without compunction.

You despise liberals because you resent anyone smarter than you.

And your "equal protection clause" rationalization does not hold water…..unless you are willing to equally protect every single minority group in existence….

Only on matters of fundamental personal choice, including marriage.

so...since you didn't answer the question before...I'll ask again….would you approve of a father marrying his adult daughter or adult son? Or the 3 of them marrying together? Or are you going to deny these "minority" groups their ceeeevil rights?

Straights and gays should be equally bound to laws against incest and bigamy. That's why I've argued equal protection rather than privacy grounds. The gay marriage issue depends on gender classifications, which raises an equal protection issue. Blood relationships (incest) and number of participants (bigamy) are not based on classifications that the equal protection clause addresses.

Let me ask you this: if the state can prohibit gay marriage and permit hetero marriage, what is there to stop it from doing the reverse?

 

[Shogun]

Thats nice. Perhaps you've been asleep for the past 8 years, but gay marriage has become much more acceptable since then. I'll be laughing at you when the constitutional amendment fails.

WHERE is your ******* evidence of such, dummy? THATS what im talking about with you cookie cutter lefties who are CONVINCED that your opinion means more than actual evidence.. you know, LIKE THE RESULT OF A ******* ELECTION.

AND, how many states passed gay marriage BANS in 2004, stupid? Yea, you really have everyone convinced.



According to the people whose opinions matter. You sure do like to talk shit about other peoples opinions, but guess what? When it comes to judges interpreting law, their opinion matters, yours doesn't. Your opinion matters even less when it becomes apparent you don't even know what the gay marriage ban is. Signed by the governor, eh?


Ahh, and thats the real CORE of this issue. YOU don't think that people matter when they disagree with your goofy ******* opinion but will cry to high heaven about fascist every time you are told no. And, just like in 04, you'll see whose voices make an actual grass root effort instead of hoping that a handful of people will void what the STATE has clearly conveyed. Indeed, don't cry like a little ***** because I pulled a fast one and made you circumvent 30 crybaby "he hurt my feelers" posts from you, dude. Maybe you can blame yourself for every time someone has busted your ass being a scandelous little ***** with posted evidence.



Their OPINION that it MAY cause trouble? Not that we are talking about that at all.


HA! yea, one State (Mass) producing no less than 11 anti states. Not to mention the galvanized support for conservatives that was the DIRECT result of the exact same shit 4 years ago.. Brilliant. ******* talented my dickhead you are, sir. Your moms must be quite proud of your cognitive abilities.


Then it should be easy to quote the 14th amendment. Why are you running away from this Shogun?

Whose running, *****? Are you back to CONVENIENTLY running back and forth between the state con and the fed con already?? Funny how that works every time i've got you pinned in a corner.



I've anwsered this about 5 times now.

No, you haven't. You've danced around the issue and think that calling me Antonin Scalia means something significant. Again, show me where the RIGHT is or shut the **** up.


They didn't intend judges to interpret the law? Really? I think that Marshall probably had a better idea of what the founders intended than you do. Them being alive and all when he was on the bench.

No. They didn't intent judges to NULLIFY legislation. How do you interpret "BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE" as anything less than a ban? I realize in larky's little world UP means DOWN and BLACK means WHITE but this isn't about civil rights and your parents are NOT the product of slaves.

And, Yes, *****.. In fact, I would imagine that a black man who has lived through the civil rights era might just know a little bit more about the impact of Brown than some smarmy cockgobbler whose parents made him think that he's the center of the universe. I mean, Thomas is ONLY a ******* supreme court justice.. and, shit, what is THAT compared to some slimey **** with more political insight from Peta shirts than Civics lessons.


Wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Shit talking? Because I said your pov was asinine? Cry me a river.



oh I KNOW, buddy.. YOUR shit don't stink!




You are like the ******* Golden Child up in here and we should all fall to our knees, thankful that the ******* latest incarnation of god is here to polish his own turd!




No, actually thats just you misinterpreting her logic. Surprise, surprise.



Not at all. SHE brought up prohibition when directly suggesting that such didn't work the last time we tried to limit the liberty of Americans. Unfortunately, she must not realize that, in fact, some areas of the US STILL DO regulate alcohol with laws coming strait out of prohibition.

But, let me tellya, it's hilarious as **** watching you try to dodge that bullet.

surprise surprise indeed.




She brought it up as a valid point. Your the moron who talked about segregating alcohol



why don't you quote post numbers so I can go ahead and grand slam you out of the park.. Didnt I JUST mention how scandelous you are when it comes to evidence? What, did you hope that no one would be able to scroll up? I mean, I ONLY ******* THANKED her for bringing up prohibition, stupid.








HIlarious!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Both straights and gays should be free to marry or shack up as a matter of individual conscience. Why do you want to permit only one option for gays?

I'm not. They already have both options.

What about the children that currently live in gay couple homes? Why should society tell them that their family isn't acceptable? Why should their families be less stable? How does this hurt children who are living in hetero homes?

What about them? Why should society give their blessing to gay families? These families are lacking an important key family figure. It provides a bad example to children in het homes. It's another degenerate liberal experiment that will further help to unravel American society.

You despise liberals because you resent anyone smarter than you.

And this is based upon your typical liberal elitist POV? You idiots just love to tinker with society....neglecting to notice the real harm you cause.

Only on matters of fundamental personal choice, including marriage.

And how do you define "fundamental personal choice"? That generality could cover just about anything...

Straights and gays should be equally bound to laws against incest and bigamy. That's why I've argued equal protection rather than privacy grounds. The gay marriage issue depends on gender classifications, which raises an equal protection issue. Blood relationships (incest) and number of participants (bigamy) are not based on classifications that the equal protection clause addresses.

Gays are currently not discriminated against regarding their gender. They have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

Sexual attraction between related people or sexual attraction among more than two people exists. It exists in the animal world too....so who are you to say that those attractions are also not "fundamental" to their personhood? You're already claiming that same sex attraction is "fundamental" to a person's happiness and personhood. You're saying that gender does not matter in marriage. If gender does not matter.... then why should relations or numbers matter? After all, these are just other adults persuing their fundamental right to persue happiness through marriage. Why aren't you willing to give them equal rights? Shouldn't they also have equal protection?

Let me ask you this: if the state can prohibit gay marriage and permit hetero marriage, what is there to stop it from doing the reverse?

Hey, if you can legislate such a law, more power to ya.

 

[Larkinn]

WHERE is your ******* evidence of such, dummy? THATS what im talking about with you cookie cutter lefties who are CONVINCED that your opinion means more than actual evidence.. you know, LIKE THE RESULT OF A ******* ELECTION.

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/NEWS01/805180323/-1/newsfront

The polls show a changing shift in opinion, though. Eight years ago, Californians overwhelmingly opposed gays and lesbians marrying, with 55 percent of likely voters against same-sex marriage and 38 percent in favor.

The latest California Public Policy Institute poll, conducted in June, shows a closing divide with 48 percent of likely voters opposed to gays and lesbians marrying and 46 percent in favor.

AND, how many states passed gay marriage BANS in 2004, stupid? Yea, you really have everyone convinced.

Because California is the same as other states.

Ahh, and thats the real CORE of this issue. YOU don't think that people matter when they disagree with your goofy ******* opinion but will cry to high heaven about fascist every time you are told no.

Wtf? I don't think YOUR opinion matters. Cry about fascists? What are you babbling about now?

And, just like in 04, you'll see whose voices make an actual grass root effort instead of hoping that a handful of people will void what the STATE has clearly conveyed. Indeed, don't cry like a little ***** because I pulled a fast one and made you circumvent 30 crybaby "he hurt my feelers" posts from you, dude. Maybe you can blame yourself for every time someone has busted your ass being a scandelous little ***** with posted evidence.

Umm, ok then.

HA! yea, one State (Mass) producing no less than 11 anti states. Not to mention the galvanized support for conservatives that was the DIRECT result of the exact same shit 4 years ago.. Brilliant. ******* talented my dickhead you are, sir. Your moms must be quite proud of your cognitive abilities.

If states didn't vote on them the first time round, what makes you think they will suddenly do so now?

Besides the fact that demographics are different than they were in 2004, and suddenly you have a Republican who isn't THAT different on gay marriage than Obama. Not exactly someone the religious right are going to come streaming out to support.

Whose running, *****? Are you back to CONVENIENTLY running back and forth between the state con and the fed con already?? Funny how that works every time i've got you pinned in a corner.

Doctrines of interpretation should be fairly constant between them. By the way, YOUR the one who brought up the fed first. That was when you stupidly thought the USSC was going to step in.

So Shogun. Where in the 14th amendment, or the Constitution, does it say that state sponsored segregation is illegal? I've asked you several times now. Going to continue to dodge?

No, you haven't. You've danced around the issue and think that calling me Antonin Scalia means something significant. Again, show me where the RIGHT is or shut the **** up.

*sigh*

There isn't one. Again.

No. They didn't intent judges to NULLIFY legislation.

Marshall disagrees. He did so in 1803 when one of the founders was actually president. I suspect he knew more about them than you do.

How do you interpret "BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE" as anything less than a ban? I realize in larky's little world UP means DOWN and BLACK means WHITE but this isn't about civil rights and your parents are NOT the product of slaves.

You don't get to enact legislation that is contradictory to the constitution. Period. 200 years of settled law you want to change because of your bullshit misinformed opinion.

And, Yes, *****.. In fact, I would imagine that a black man who has lived through the civil rights era might just know a little bit more about the impact of Brown than some smarmy cockgobbler whose parents made him think that he's the center of the universe.

Retard. As I've said Thomas's statement doesn't contradict anything I've said. Secondly, we aren't talking about the impact of brown, we are talking about the legal doctrine behind it. Specifically how was the USSC justified in saying segregation was illegal? Where does it say that in the constitution Shogun? Its a simple question really, its pathetic you keep tap dancing around it.

I mean, Thomas is ONLY a ******* supreme court justice.. and, shit, what is THAT compared to some slimey **** with more political insight from Peta shirts than Civics lessons.

I'm not saying he's wroing, I'm saying YOU have the inability to read what hes written.

Not at all. SHE brought up prohibition when directly suggesting that such didn't work the last time we tried to limit the liberty of Americans. Unfortunately, she must not realize that, in fact, some areas of the US STILL DO regulate alcohol with laws coming strait out of prohibition.

Thats nice, and you said that alcohol was segregated

why don't you quote post numbers so I can go ahead and grand slam you out of the park.. Didnt I JUST mention how scandelous you are when it comes to evidence? What, did you hope that no one would be able to scroll up? I mean, I ONLY ******* THANKED her for bringing up prohibition, stupid.

Are you that retarded? Scroll up, I quoted where you said it and laughed at you then. Even a trained monkey could do it. Oh...right...sorry.

Here you go. Its this little gem.

But buying alcohol, prohibition, IS. Where is their "right", eh Ravi? And no, it's not debatable. Feel free to open your argument with evidence from the Constitution. And no, it doesn't "become a right" just because gays are not offered the same options as straits. Feel free to tell me how selling alcohol became a right since dry counties segregate availability of alcohol..

 

[Shogun]

California gay marriage ruling sets stage for fall battle
Valley could play major role on both sides of effort to overrule court

READ the title and VERY FIRST ******* SENTENCE, stupid!


The Coachella Valley is likely to play a high-profile role in any effort to convince voters in November to override Thursday's historic California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages.

or maybe THIS sentence, you slimy *****

If a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage makes November's ballot and is approved, the state Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling would be trumped.

or maybe THIS

To be placed on the November ballot, a constitutional amendment measure requires support from 8 percent of the registered voters in the last gubernatorial race, or 694,354 signatures, by June 26.

ProtectMarriage.com has collected more than 1.1 million signatures across the state, according to its Web site.


oooor...


"Hopefully it's not only a wake-up call, but an energizer to get Californians out and support the marriage amendment," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for the public policy wing of Denver-based Focus on the Family. "The courts are taking the definition away from the people who have been defining marriage for a couple hundred years," he added.

MAYBE

Twenty-six other states have passed constitutional marriage amendments. Most of those that have been successful, Hausknecht said, have a similar process to that in California - where the amendment goes before voters and not the state legislature.

AND


"The people spoke loud and clear with Prop. 22," Benoit said. "I think it's unfortunate when the court steps in and overrides the will of the people."



Holy shit, dude.. Hey, THANKS for bringing us back to 04, dickface. Your three month window of parental bliss really is worth another 4 years.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, you can act like a slimey fact-dodging ***** all you want, Larky. Run to the Fed and then claim we were talking about the state constitution... Insist that a Clarence ******* Thomas quote about Brown DOESN'T disagree with your fanboi worship of anything from the civil rights era... Claim that 2000 legislation doesn't matter... Talk about the "right" of marriage without posting the slightest ******* iota of evidence yadda yadda.

Hey, it's all good, *****. When we are all on USMB one month before the general election and you wonder where the **** all the conservatives came from all of a sudden to bitchslap your gay ******* three month window down as well as hand the presidency to a republican, EXACTLY LIKE 04, I'll be here reminding you about this very thread. And, come Jan 1, 2009, when recently passed LEGISLATION negates your family celebration im going to be here laughing at you cry about CONSERVATIVE fascists all day long.

I hope you remember this thread, dude. Cause, I'm going to drag it back up come November.

 

[Larkinn]

California gay marriage ruling sets stage for fall battle
Valley could play major role on both sides of effort to overrule court

READ the title and VERY FIRST ******* SENTENCE, stupid!


The Coachella Valley is likely to play a high-profile role in any effort to convince voters in November to override Thursday's historic California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages.

or maybe THIS sentence, you slimy *****

If a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage makes November's ballot and is approved, the state Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling would be trumped.

or maybe THIS

To be placed on the November ballot, a constitutional amendment measure requires support from 8 percent of the registered voters in the last gubernatorial race, or 694,354 signatures, by June 26.

ProtectMarriage.com has collected more than 1.1 million signatures across the state, according to its Web site.


oooor...


"Hopefully it's not only a wake-up call, but an energizer to get Californians out and support the marriage amendment," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for the public policy wing of Denver-based Focus on the Family. "The courts are taking the definition away from the people who have been defining marriage for a couple hundred years," he added.

MAYBE

Twenty-six other states have passed constitutional marriage amendments. Most of those that have been successful, Hausknecht said, have a similar process to that in California - where the amendment goes before voters and not the state legislature.

AND


"The people spoke loud and clear with Prop. 22," Benoit said. "I think it's unfortunate when the court steps in and overrides the will of the people."



Holy shit, dude.. Hey, THANKS for bringing us back to 04, dickface. Your three month window of parental bliss really is worth another 4 years.

Wow, you are shitting a brick aren't you. Well its just an added benefit to this ruling to see you whine and ***** and fret needlessly.

I hope you remember this thread, dude. Cause, I'm going to drag it back up come November.

Oh, please do. You won't though, you desperately hide and ignore your failures.

Want to tell me how the California legislature passed the gay marriage ban again?

Still waiting for that quote from the 14th amendment, by the way. Somehow I don't think your ever going to provide it. What a surprise.

 

[Ravi]

Hey, you can act like a slimey fact-dodging ***** all you want, Larky. Run to the Fed and then claim we were talking about the state constitution... Insist that a Clarence ******* Thomas quote about Brown DOESN'T disagree with your fanboi worship of anything from the civil rights era... Claim that 2000 legislation doesn't matter... Talk about the "right" of marriage without posting the slightest ******* iota of evidence yadda yadda.

Hey, it's all good, *****. When we are all on USMB one month before the general election and you wonder where the **** all the conservatives came from all of a sudden to bitchslap your gay ******* three month window down as well as hand the presidency to a republican, EXACTLY LIKE 04, I'll be here reminding you about this very thread. And, come Jan 1, 2009, when recently passed LEGISLATION negates your family celebration im going to be here laughing at you cry about CONSERVATIVE fascists all day long.

I hope you remember this thread, dude. Cause, I'm going to drag it back up come November.

They tried that with the Terri S. case before the 2006 election, didn't work out very well for them.

So your idea is to appease the wingnuts by giving into them?

 

[Shogun]

Wow, you are shitting a brick aren't you. Well its just an added benefit to this ruling to see you whine and ***** and fret needlessly.



Oh, please do. You won't though, you desperately hide and ignore your failures.

Want to tell me how the California legislature passed the gay marriage ban again?

Still waiting for that quote from the 14th amendment, by the way. Somehow I don't think your ever going to provide it. What a surprise.

HA!

You still don't get how i AVOIDED 5 pages of your bullshit by making you bring up prop22, do you? I've been laughing at your jaunt between the fed and the state constitutions long enough to know how absolutely devious you are when it comes to evidence. I know it's got to sting knowing that i used you but I kept telling you I was three steps ahead, dude.


And, it makes sense that you'd focus on the 14th amendment this side of having your ass handed to you.. BY YOUR OWN ******* EVIDENCE, no less!



indeed, thats not too surprising really.

 

[Shogun]

They tried that with the Terri S. case before the 2006 election, didn't work out very well for them.

So your idea is to appease the wingnuts by giving into them?

my idea is to have the slightest ******* strategic forsight to bring the issue up AFTER the ******* presidential election. Especially, when we can see exactly how this issue comes back to bite the dems in the ass. All for what? A three month window until LEGISLATION passed in the fall will ban it again WHILE attracting the thumper faction like old food draws a cockroach?


And, even conservatives have to put down aging family members.. Thats not the case with gays and marriage. The nation isn't about to support this yet. And, during an election cycle that matters it's ******* retarded to sever your own achilles tendon for three months of temporary bliss.

 

[Larkinn]

Haha...the old Shogun MO. When you've gotten your ass kicked so badly you don't have an arguments left, declare victory!

Yes, you made me bring up prop 22. I'm sure all of your idiotic comments about how the governor signed it were all just a trick

You win Shogun! On the internet no less! All hail Shogun, the self-declared winner!






















Pssst. Shogun. You might want to edit those parts where you said the governor signed the ban, where you said that the USSC would overrule it, where you said that judges aren't allowed to overturn legislation, and stuff like that. They make you look pretty ******* retarded. And we can't have you, the winner, looking like that, can we fluffy?

 

[Larkinn]

my idea is to have the slightest ******* strategic forsight to bring the issue up AFTER the ******* presidential election. Especially, when we can see exactly how this issue comes back to bite the dems in the ass. All for what? A three month window until LEGISLATION passed in the fall will ban it again WHILE attracting the thumper faction like old food draws a cockroach?

You do know that this has been in the courts for a while now, right? It takes a long time for something to get decided by the Supremes. Not exactly easy to time it.

 

[Shogun]

Haha...the old Shogun MO. When you've gotten your ass kicked so badly you don't have an arguments left, declare victory!

Yes, you made me bring up prop 22. I'm sure all of your idiotic comments about how the governor signed it were all just a trick

You win Shogun! On the internet no less! All hail Shogun, the self-declared winner!






















Pssst. Shogun. You might want to edit those parts where you said the governor signed the ban, where you said that the USSC would overrule it, where you said that judges aren't allowed to overturn legislation, and stuff like that. They make you look pretty ******* retarded. And we can't have you, the winner, looking like that, can we fluffy?

I suggest you figure out what the word Ruse means and try to avoid the landmines I set out for you the next time, dude... Indeed, had you read the USA Today Article I posted you'd have seen them bring up the very same hypothetical I did regarding the Supreme court addressing this decision. Thank god you are being too roughed up by your OWN Nevidence to dive into mine, eh?







poor guy... don't hate me because Im smarter than you. Hate yourself for believing your mommies when they told you that the world revolves around your opinion..

 

[Shogun]

You do know that this has been in the courts for a while now, right? It takes a long time for something to get decided by the Supremes. Not exactly easy to time it.

Did I say COURT, jackass? No. Legislation, asshole. You know, the way it was meant to happen. Democracy and all that bullshit? Im not looking for a reason to make half of the US react like the 100 years in between the emancipation Proclimation and the Civil Rights Era... But, I don't expect you to comprehend the full capacity of that statement so blah blah 14th amendment blah.


Oh, and go ahead and post you a little time capsule in this thread so when I bring it back up we can really measure just how ******* lead-breakfast retarded you really are.

 

[Larkinn]

Did I say COURT, jackass? No. Legislation, asshole. You know, the way it was meant to happen. Democracy and all that bullshit? Im not looking for a reason to make half of the US react like the 100 years in between the emancipation Proclimation and the Civil Rights Era... But, I don't expect you to comprehend the full capacity of that statement so blah blah 14th amendment blah.

You blamed them for not waiting until after the election. "they" are people who sued California. That would be in the COURTS.

Judges can interpret the constitution, dumbass. Its been law for 200 years.

Oh, and go ahead and post you a little time capsule in this thread so when I bring it back up we can really measure just how ******* lead-breakfast retarded you really are.

We both know your never gonna bring this up Shogun. Even if my predictions end up being wrong, the pure unadulterated stupidity you've demonstrated means that you'll never bring it up again. You just want the last word because its all that matters in your little world.