Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[swordandsandle]

Nuclear Iggy for you, you're too fucking dumb to waste time on. Get it?

Do I have to do this again?

This is my poam to explain why you conservatives will never understand the concept of "Keeping an equal percentage of income"


Rudyard Kipling
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face,
tho' they come from the ends of the earth!

Replace East and West with Right and Left and you get the idea.

By the way, graceful exit. You just have nothing to say to counter me

 

[RobDownSouth]

Number 2? Do you need a hall pass?

Yet another scat reference by the Vettebigot. tsk.

 

[mercury14]

Idiot.

Ishmael

Good comeback when you get called on your extremist, all-or-nothing thinking.

Remember how you righties kept claiming that you're the party of freedom? Well, here's your chance to take a stand for freedom over the tyranny of the majority.

Take it and run or hang your heads in hypocritical shame.

 

[mercury14]

Nuclear Iggy for you, you're too fucking dumb to waste time on. Get it?

Four people just responded the way Sword did.

Please put us all on "NUCLEAR iggy". Be consistent for once in your life.

 

[richard_daily]

Four people just responded the way he did.

Please put us all on iggy. Be consistent for once in your life.

He already has me on ignore because he wanted to compare financial penis sizes, and he came out smaller...

 

[firespin]

OMG. Even without touching on the whole premise of the proposition 8 ruling, I'd like to nominate this thread for outstanding performance in making stuff up, to wit:

If it was all about the "will of the people" slavery would still be legal.

Polygamy is legal.

Incest, of course, has one non-consenting party.

The government has no laws regarding adultery, and likely never will.

Jesus H Christ, how can you people run a country with fifty different sets of laws based on which side of an arbitrary imaginary line on the ground you happen to live on?

As to the prop 8 question, it would be interesting to see what the SCOTUS has to say. There are many laws on the books that discriminate on the basis of sex*, and employers are likewise allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex if it's considered justified. That said, the prohibitions on gay marriage are arguably not justified, but then, so are other regulations around marriage...can gay cousins marry?

*-The strongest expression of the Court’s standard came in United States v. Virginia (1996), a case challenging the exclusion of women by the state of Virginia from an all-male military-type college. The Court’s decision read in part:

"Parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for that action… [This standard] does not make sex a proscribed classification. But…such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women."

 

[mercury14]

He already has me on ignore because he wanted to compare financial penis sizes, and he came out smaller...

Yeah but did he put you on nuclear iggy?

 

[Byron In Exile]

And Australia is 2.9 million square miles. You have a point?

Yeah, and I'm surprised you haven't picked up on it yet.

Australia is mostly uninhabited desert. Not much need for government in an unoccupied wilderness. There are 22 million people living there. There are 37 million people living in California.

Does that provide any glimmer of insight regarding the need for State governments?

The US is 3.7 million square miles inhabited by 310 million people.

Try running all of that shit from Washington D.C., and you'll see the current nightmarish circus multiplied ten-fold with streamers, balloons, and sparks shooting out Obama's ass.

 

[Sean]

Yeah, and I'm surprised you haven't picked up on it yet.

Australia is mostly uninhabited desert. Not much need for government in an unoccupied wilderness. There are 22 million people living there. There are 37 million people living in California.

Does that provide any glimmer of insight regarding the need for State governments?

The US is 3.7 million square miles inhabited by 310 million people.

Try running all of that shit from Washington D.C., and you'll see the current nightmarish circus multiplied ten-fold with streamers, balloons, and sparks shooting out Obama's ass.

When government decisions had to be communicated by a bloke on the back of a horse you may have had a point. These days, not so much. As for population size, India seems to manage.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Or perhaps you might try to explain that it NEVER was intended for the federal government to 'run' the country.

Yeah, or for the President to "run" the federal government, or to "run" the national economy...

But who would even believe that shit today?

 

[Drixxx]

So why under the law are the top 1% of earners required to pay 40% of the tax burden in America? What happened to equal protection under the law?

Boo fucking hoo! You really want me to get all teary eyed over the tax burdens of the super rich? Fuck them. If they want somebody to feel sorry for them and their problems they can pay somebody to do it.

http://www.charterworld.com/images/yachts/Motor%20Yacht%20Jo%20-%20Cruising6.jpg

http://rareyachts.com/userfiles/luxury_yacht_03.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/06/business/06yacht.583.jpg

http://www.ships-info.info/design/Pelorus_yacht.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

As for population size, India seems to manage.

Another entry for the "people saying stupid things" file.

 

[Byron In Exile]

When government decisions had to be communicated by a bloke on the back of a horse you may have had a point. These days, not so much. As for population size, India seems to manage.

I'd rather live in the United States than in India, thanks.

"Managing" might be alright for them, but I'm accustomed to a system that has produced a better outcome than theirs has.

 

[unregistered]

 

[swordandsandle]

And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law; which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.

William Blackstone


“If you take away laws and leave everything free to the judges . . . they will rule as their own nature leads and order whatever pleases them, in which case the people will in no wise be more free but worse off and in a condition of slavery, since instead of settled and certain laws they will have to submit to uncertain whims changing from day to day.”

Thomas More
__________________


"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297


"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

So, you site a bunch of anti-federalists and conservatives to convince us that anti-federalsim is the light.

This sample group is so bias.

 

[Sean]

“If you take away laws and leave everything free to the judges . . . they will rule as their own nature leads and order whatever pleases them, in which case the people will in no wise be more free but worse off and in a condition of slavery, since instead of settled and certain laws they will have to submit to uncertain whims changing from day to day.”

Thomas More

“Marriage is an Athenic weaving together of families, of two souls with their individual fates and destinies, of time and eternity - everyday life married to the timeless mysteries of the soul.”

Thomas More



“Whoever loveth me, loveth my hound”

Thomas More

Tell me, do you think the POTUS should be subject to the authority of the Vatican?

 

[richard_daily]

Yeah but did he put you on nuclear iggy?

I believe it was nucular iggy.

 

[Sean]

Another entry for the "people saying stupid things" file.

Go Google reductio ad absurdum. I'll wait.

 

[HB1965]

And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law; which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.

William Blackstone


“If you take away laws and leave everything free to the judges . . . they will rule as their own nature leads and order whatever pleases them, in which case the people will in no wise be more free but worse off and in a condition of slavery, since instead of settled and certain laws they will have to submit to uncertain whims changing from day to day.”

Thomas More
__________________


"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297


"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Very nice Vetteman. Everything that you're quoting is OPINION and not about the reality of the Constitution as it was written by the framers. Sorry.

 

[Sean]

Very nice Vetteman. Everything that you're quoting is OPINION and not about the reality of the Constitution as it was written by the framers. Sorry.

Thomas More died a couple of hundred years before it was written.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's obvious that this decision is going to end up in the Supreme Court. I, for one, hope they reverse the decision.

This is a decision that should properly be decided by the people of a state or the legislative assembly of the state, not by judicial fiat. This decision is highly divisive and will remain so just as Roe v Wade has if allowed to stand. Some years ago California passed a similar ballot initiative by 62%, the most recent vote passed by only 52%. It's clear to see which way sentiment is trending.

The argument before the bench, and indeed the ruling itself, is filled with a considerable amount of emotional appeal and invective towards those who oppose this ruling. The judgement specifically addressed those who voted for the proposition. This is a new element in the debate.

The argument that, "loving, caring, couples of the same sex should be allowed to marry is certainly compelling on an emotional level. But if the threshold is, 'loving, and caring', then why should marriage be restricted to any particular combination? Why not sons and mothers, or fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, polygamy and polyandry? It would be difficult for anyone to argue that those relationships are not 'loving and caring.' I suppose that it's safe to say that human-animal unions would be off the table in that if might be difficult to get an animal to affirm the depth of its 'love and caring.'

If the federal courts remove from the states the ability to define what constitutes a legal union then the court has opened the door for petitions for any of the above possible unions and the people and legislatures be damned. Afterall to outlaw any of the other possibilities would come across as 'hateful and capricious' on the part of the state or its people. And if the 'right' to marriage is indeed a human 'right' then how can any body of people, their representatives, or the courts deny any of the above possible relationships?

This is a Pandoras box that need not, and should not, be opened by the federal courts.

Ishmael

This isn't a state issue. Letting the states decide doesn't work on some issues. It didn't work in the 1850's and certainly works less now. As frequently as people change states, contracts must be honored equally in all 50 states and territories.

I imagine there is already a law preventing fathers & daughters from marrying. No one is addressing that issue at all in this thread except you as it has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't expect anything out of you Drixxx. The point is if the 14th Amendment equal protection clause protects gay marriage under the law why doesn't it protect people under the tax code, and where does the Constitution allow otherwise?

Again, look up "protected class" vs. "conduct" and you'll have your answer.

It won't be the answer you want, so you'll ignore or disparage it, but it won't go away no matter how long you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't heeeeear you!"

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I don't expect anything out of you Drixxx. The point is if the 14th Amendment equal protection clause protects gay marriage under the law why doesn't it protect people under the tax code, and where does the Constitution allow otherwise?

So go challenge the tax code as being unconstitutional.

I'd be willing to back that argument because as far as I'm concerned a graduated income tax IS unconstitutional.

It should be a flat rate, the same percentage of income for everyone (above poverty level). Every penny above poverty level should be taxed at exactly the same rate regardless of top income level. No shelters, no bullshit deductions, no offshore hiding of income.

You make $230K, you pay 15% income tax on $200K (figuring $30K as poverty level and 15% tax rate just for argument's sake) $30,000 in taxes. If you make $50K you pay 10% income tax on $20K, or $3000.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Framer

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823