Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:56 pm

Jsc810 wrote:The US Constitution does not depend upon the popular vote of the people.

The Constitution is whatever the fuck "WE THE PEOPLE" say it is, you ridiculous assclown. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?

Jesus fucking Christ on a popsicle stick.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:57 pm

Jsc810 wrote: What part of equal are people having trouble understanding?

The part where enjoying a dick up your ass gives you the same rights and priveledges as ordinary couples. Marriage is a sacred institution because it's designed to propogate the human species in the most benelovent manner possible for the benefit of that goal. Some part of that your ilk are having trouble understanding?

Too bad that the predisposition of being a flaming faggot couldn't be diagnosed before birth, then you might have some justification for aborting that particular defect. But wait... since people aren't born gay and rather make that choice instead, your abortion argument is still as ridiculous as your stance on gay marriage.

missjo · Post by **missjo** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:17 am

Yes the gays should suffer too!!!

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:35 am

mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The US Constitution does not depend upon the popular vote of the people.
The Constitution is whatever the fuck "WE THE PEOPLE" say it is, you ridiculous assclown. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?

The Constitution is whatever the people say it is, and the Constitution says that all people shall enjoy the same rights unprivileges until due process says otherwise. If the people want it changed, they need to amend it, you constitutional imbecile.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:49 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The US Constitution does not depend upon the popular vote of the people.
The Constitution is whatever the fuck "WE THE PEOPLE" say it is, you ridiculous assclown. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?
The Constitution is whatever the people say it is, and the Constitution says that all people shall enjoy the same rights unprivileges until due process says otherwise. If the people want it changed, they need to amend it, you constitutional imbecile.

So it does in fact depend on the popular vote of the people. Good job making my point and kicking your own ass in the process, you kiddy-diddling fucktard.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:15 am

mvscal wrote:So it does in fact depend on the popular vote of the people. Good job making my point and kicking your own ass in the process, you kiddy-diddling fucktard.

Prop 8 doesn't meet the standard set forth in Article 5 of the US Constitution, dumbfuck.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:17 am

Jsc810 wrote:Looks like the meltage here might be fun to watch too.

You enjoyed prostate surgery?

srsly dude, where's your dog in this hunt? You're married and have kids, so why the manlove?

I mean, I sorta get your stance on abortion, but not this.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:35 am

The only entity that should be deciding who gets married and who does not is the individual church at which two people want to get married.

Both sides have already spent way too much money on a moot argument, since it falls under equal protection and everyone's known that from the start.

trev · Post by **trev** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:44 am

Let the gays have their way. They will eventually.

Ana Ng · Post by **Ana Ng** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:51 am

Big fan of the gays, here.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:55 am

The homosexuals.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:01 am

trev wrote:Let the gays have their way. They will eventually.

Trev!! What happened? Somebody steal your nic?

I've never seen you back down...why now?

Girl, you need to get back in there and fight the good fight.
Save our society. Send the fornicators back to Sodom.
What will mvscal think?

Did one of your kids come out or something?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:03 am

88 wrote:I don't see anything in the 14th Amendment that would prohibit the People of California from amending their Constitution to clarify to their own California Supreme Court that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Point it out to me.

14th Amendment wrote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage provides many privileges. By denying gays & lesbians the right to choose to marry who they choose they are at the same time denying access to those privileges w/o due process.

What's so hard to understand about that?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:09 am

Big win for the gays today, though.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:16 am

If homosexuality is genetic eventually it will die out won't it ?

trev · Post by **trev** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:21 am

Mikey, I just don't see the point in stopping them from marriage. I love people.
Geeez, what do you think I am a calous individual? Gay people are quite nice.

No, no one in my family has come out. Sheesh.

Besides, I've been hanging out in Hillcrest a lot this summer.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:40 am

Ana Ng wrote:Big fan of the gays, here.

The demise of RTT had to be especially hard for you to swallow. You couldn't swing a dead cat JSC had aborted without hitting a half dozen.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:57 am

Yeah but you see we're only a generation or two from the old days where fags would try to lead a "normal" life. Have sex with women, wives, they'd have children ... etc..

I mean if it's genetic and all.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:04 am

Jsc810 wrote:The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Not really but it must suck for you that these young people don't vote. And by the time they get older and wiser, they change their mind.

Die in a car wreck, shit for brains.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:46 am

I really wish that I could give a shit, one way or the other... but I don't.

I'll acquiesce to what the voters in my state decide (which was "no," but the closest such vote of any state that's had one).

Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that it's all about getting a free ride -- why else would anyone need this "affirmation" if it wasn't to get over (note: I have no problems with people being able to name any beneficiary, responsible party, or anything else, regardless of any relationship or gender).

But, as usual, I think 88's stance on Constitutionality is nails... unless someone can show me the amendment that cites marriage specifically.

As far as Diego's take that "marriage HAS priviledges" -- then those should probably be outlawed, no? Since people who CHOOSE to not marry aren't afforded those same priviledges, now are they?... you know, that whole "equal protection" thing and all... ridiculously non-Constitutional take, and pretty much a KYOA moment.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:04 am

mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The US Constitution does not depend upon the popular vote of the people.
The Constitution is whatever the fuck "WE THE PEOPLE" say it is, you ridiculous assclown. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?

Jesus fucking Christ on a popsicle stick.

Wow. Real "strict constructionist" here.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:07 am

Dinsdale wrote:But, as usual, I think 88's stance on Constitutionality is nails... unless someone can show me the amendment that cites marriage specifically.

You know....it's right next to that one that says people have the right to AK47's.

Way to KYOA, Duncedale.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:08 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:You know....it's right next to that one that says people have the right to AK47's.

Uhm, that would be the "Second."

Which one are you citing?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:14 am

And Fred Phelps' homies were there to protest. And be punked.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:15 am

88 wrote:Jsc-

The problem is not in the conferring of the designation of "marriage" to couples who were never encompassed by the definition. To be honest, I'm very much in the same camp as Dinsdale on that one. I really don't give a flying fuck.

But what I do care about is the process by which we, the People, govern ourselves. The United States is a government of the People. We consent to being governed. Without that consent, you have tyranny.

The People, through their representatives, established a Constitutional form of government. The People set down how it was all supposed to work. The Constitution is the single document that determines how the government is organized. The Constitution establishes that the United States is a federation of individual States that get to exercise all the power that is not specifically enumerated to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment spells this out very clearly.

Congress has the power to enact laws in certain enumerated areas. The power of Congress to act is limited. The same is true of the Executive Branch. It can only exercise the power that the Constitution expressly enumerates it can exercise. The Judicial Branch is supposed to serve as a check and balance to the exercise of that power. And the Judicial Branch has fallen down on the job.

You reference case law like it is the equivalent of the Constitution. It is not. It is subject to change any time 5 people decide it should change. It was never supposed to be like that.

When there is a defect or flaw in our Constitution, the Constitution has a remedy: it can be amended. When the People realized that slavery was wrong, they didn't look to the Supreme Court to fix it. They fixed it (after a nasty ass war) by amending the Constitution. The same was true for the right of women to vote and many other issues. But the Judiciary has taken it upon itself to amend the Constitution outside of the process by which the People consented.

Prop 8 doesn't deprive anyone of liberty. It doesn't deprive them of property. People are free to live together as they choose. They are free to act or behave or love or do whatever it is they want without government interference. What it does do is prohibit people from calling their same sex relationships the same thing as opposite sex relationships, and from requiring the People to acknowledge and respect a non-traditional relationship that the People presently do not wish to acknowledge and respect as equal to traditional marriage.

If the homosexual political lobby can make a good case for changing the views of the People, then they should do so. And they should encourage the People to change the definition of marriage to encompass their non-traditional relationships. They could get their state legislatures to enact same sex marriage laws. And ultimately, convince the People to consent to an amendment of the Constitution.

But they aren't willing or are not able to do that. So they get the Court to find a right where no such right previously existed. Their ability to use the Judicial Branch to obtain a legislative victory subverts the process. And, it weakens the faith of the People in their government, because it forces the People to act and live in a way in which they have not consented. That is tyranny my friend. Whether it is wrapped up in a pretty morally acceptable bow or not. It is tyranny.

I'm contemplating changing my nic to JSC810 and giving you a blowjob.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:19 am

Dinsdale wrote:I'm contemplating changing my nic to JSC810 and giving you a blowjob.

I'm only posting here so that you don't think better of this post when you sober up.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:19 am

BSmack wrote:And Fred Phelps' homies were there to protest. And be punked.

Speaking of...

Those nutcases came to Portland recently. Their cause?

Nothing to do with the most homo-friendly city in the country (which has a known gay kiddy-diddling mayor, and not enough people even care enough for a recall election)...

Nope.

Their tremendous beef that they came halfway across the country to bitch about?

A Jew was hired as a school principal.

No, seriously... that really happened.

They do have a redeeming quality, though -- comic relief from the harsh realities of the world.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:21 am

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I'm contemplating changing my nic to JSC810 and giving you a blowjob.
I'm only posting here so that you don't think better of this post when you sober up.

It was intended as some homosmack visited upon JSC...

But I can see where this could go horribly wrong for me.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:27 am

A Jew was hired as a school principal.

fuck NO!

--kevnic

Ana Ng · Post by **Ana Ng** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:39 am

War Wagon wrote:
Ana Ng wrote:Big fan of the gays, here.
The demise of RTT had to be especially hard for you to swallow.

Not really.

I keep coming back here.

Ana Ng · Post by **Ana Ng** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:47 am

trev wrote:Besides, I've been hanging out in Hillcrest a lot this summer.

I love that little town.

Everyone pretty much accepts anyone, and we can walk freely there at night and NOT have to worry about getting mugged/raped.

Bellissimo!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:01 am

Ana Ng wrote:Everyone pretty much accepts anyone

That is how my beloved town rolls...

and we can walk freely there at night and NOT have to worry about getting mugged/raped.

One out of two ain't bad.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:17 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:You know....it's right next to that one that says people have the right to AK47's.

Uhm, that would be the "Second."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where do you see "AK47" in there, dumbshit?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:15 pm

The Iowa Supreme Court struck down an Iowa law proclaiming a marriage is to be between a man and a woman which ultimately led to gay marriages being conducted in Iowa. The public, which overwhelmingly disagrees with the SC ruling will have an opportunity to voice their objections to the SC Justices when a number of the court members come up for a retention vote in November. Word has it that there will be a campaign to oust all of the SC Justices who will be on the ballot, including the Chief Justice, who must receive 51% of the vote to remain on the bench. This should be a very interesting vote.

FYI, all Judges in Iowa are appointed by the Governor but are subject to a retention vote every four years. I know of only one Judge, a District Court Judge, who was voted off the bench in the past 30 years, but the gay marriage issue will bring out a lot of negative votes, imo.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:31 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:You know....it's right next to that one that says people have the right to AK47's.

Uhm, that would be the "Second."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where do you see "AK47" in there, dumbshit?

In bold, dumbfuck.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:34 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The US Constitution does not depend upon the popular vote of the people.
The Constitution is whatever the fuck "WE THE PEOPLE" say it is, you ridiculous assclown. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?

Jesus fucking Christ on a popsicle stick.
Wow. Real "strict constructionist" here.

Yes, it is, you stupid, pinheaded fuckwit.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:49 pm

Jsc810 wrote:That's not going to happen. Stick a fork in it, it is done.

We already have seen with the Citizens United case that this court is not above making up law when they see fit. You may be right on all the facts, but if Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy decide to make it up as they go, the reversal will come faster than Diego can depants a 6 year old.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:57 pm

88 wrote:I wonder if polygamists now have a basis to challenge the denial of multiple marriages? Wouldn't the same Due Process and Equal Protection argument apply to their case? They just want to marry two or more people at the same time. Surely, there is no rational basis for preventing such a thing. How can a state single polygamists out for separate, disparate treatment? I'm figuring that the bi-sexuals would be all over that one.

Or the Mormons.

I don't care who gets married as long as informed consent is involved. Neither should you.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:34 pm

Mace wrote:The Iowa Supreme Court struck down an Iowa law proclaiming a marriage is to be between a man and a woman which ultimately led to gay marriages being conducted in Iowa.

Damn shame you could not get sheep included in that opinion. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:13 pm

Jsc810 wrote: In the 1960s, a substantial majority of the states prohibited inter-racial marriages, many even made it a crime. You know what happened after that. Was there a problem in the process that led up to the Loving decision? How is this different?

Because the 14th covers this one quite clearly.

Are you serious? Did you get your law degree from a box of Cracker Jacks?