Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[RobDownSouth]

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 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.

Interesting factoid: the Supreme Court has never once in its existence declared a tax to be unconstitutional.

 

[Sean]

"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

I see one BIG fucking problem with that quote. Probable.

 

[eyer]

The primary problem with this issue is that it's a cultural issue, not a federal legal issue. Why? Because the 14th Amendment does not concern sexual orientation, it concerns discrimination. And there is no discrimination in the Californian proposition: it applies to all, equally...

...a gay man cannot marry another man. A straight man cannot marry another man. A bisexual man cannot marry another man. A hispanic man cannot marry another man. An American-african man cannot marry another man...do you see the truth, here?

It matters not what "type" of man you cite, no man can marry another man. It applies to all men, equally. Discrimination is absent in this issue...

...except to socialists who intentionally circumvent the law to bring about the social, cultural change they demand.

The same issue concerning women is no different, obviously.

So, this discrimination objection is irrelevant to truth, no matter your emotional view on the subject. If you can't stop there, you have no logical business participating in adult debate. Claiming "discrimination" here is the same as claiming "racism" for whatever reason one wants. So, I don't expect the logical truth to make any difference to the usual emotional subjects...

...which applies overwhelmingly to buckprivateman, who obviously can't see logic thru the socialist-colored contact lenses he wears. He incessantly bothers vetteman to answer (paraphrasing), "What harm is gay marriage to society?"

What a socialist knucklehead: homosexual activity, let alone marriage, creates no society at all, because natural procreation is outlawed to the homosexual.

If homosexuality was exclusive, within a generation the human race would disappear. That's the fact about how "positive" homosexuality is to "society". But some of you go on with your childish logic...just like children, you don't care about the good of society as much as you demand your way. Sadly though, unlike children, so many of you are forever trapped in your immature, emotional, illogical socialism.

If gays and lesbians want to claim discrimination before a Court, they need to start out with Nature. But, they and their emotional supporters know the Truth about Nature - they have no case with that Supreme Judge...and that's why they turn to emotional human judges for their circumventing causes.

Homosexuality is best kept where all issues should be: in the individual. It's none of my business if you're homosexual. It's none of yours if I am. It's certainly not government's if either of us are...

...the more you socialist losers demand legal involvement, the more you're going to get. That's all swell and good when you got the government you like, but guess who gets burned at the stake first when government doesn't like you.

But, that's the logic of keeping government out of your life as humanly as possible - so that no matter what government is in power, the power they have in your life is limited eternally.

Socialists don't believe in limits...again, like little children, they not only believe they can have their cake and eat it, too, they demand it from all.

Socialists: totally superior to the laws of nature and totally tyrannical to the individual liberties of man.

BTW: I love the great debate this forum affords, but you vindictive, hateful folks have no place at my table. It's a shame, kinda, because my nature wants to believe that everyone - no matter how terrible they sometimes are - has something interesting to say. Reality, though, has proven to me haters truly do not have anything of interest that I want to hear, so...

zipman
SeanH
buckprivateman
DCL

YOU'RE IGNORED ! (credit to DTrump)

Liar: I believe I'm very liberal concerning you, but you are that close...I ask you sincerely to refrain from the vindictiveness and the childish immaturity. Thanx.

 

[Drixxx]

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?

For same reason children, the handicapped, and old people don't get drafted. If you need to fight a war you go to able bodied young men. If you need to collect taxes you go to rich people. It's really not that complicated.

 

[HB1965]

"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

Sorry, Jefferson was not a framer. He was an opponent of the Federalist and was not in favor of the Constitution as it was. This is an opinion only. As Sean implies, if you are using for literal interpretation the word probable kills that.

 

[swordandsandle]

"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

As I have said once and will say again then, Right to Bear Arms applys only to flintlock pistols and single-shot rifles, and Freedom of Speech does not apply to televison and the internet, ect, ect.

 

[overthebow]

You said the government has no laws against adultery and never will. I proved you wrong, what do you say?

Uh, actually, that was me. I did a C&P from wikipedia.

 

[firespin]

For same reason children, the handicapped, and old people don't get drafted. If you need to fight a war you go to able bodied young men. If you need to collect taxes you go to rich people. It's really not that complicated.

By the same line of argument, if a man wants to marry somebody, he marries a woman. Common sense, right?

 

[overthebow]

As I have said once and will say again then, Right to Bear Arms applys only to flintlock pistols and single-shot rifles, and Freedom of Speech does not apply to televison and the internet, ect, ect.

But what about the right to arm bears?

Huh?

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/the-right-to-arm-bears-demotivational-poster-1250985223.png

 

[Sean]

snip

No-one gives a shit who you're ignoring, knob cheese.

 

[jeninflorida]

Clearly the judge is a nut case, off his rocker...what a sick political world we live in.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/0...section=cnn_latest#fbid=WS2SPseXi3S&wom=false

I'm sure this will both please and annoy a lot of people..

 

[Luk]

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

I remember that exchange, fucking classic.

 

[swordandsandle]

The primary problem with this issue is that it's a cultural issue, not a federal legal issue. Why? Because the 14th Amendment does not concern sexual orientation, it concerns discrimination. And there is no discrimination in the Californian proposition: it applies to all, equally...

...a gay man cannot marry another man. A straight man cannot marry another man. A bisexual man cannot marry another man. A hispanic man cannot marry another man. An American-african man cannot marry another man...do you see the truth, here?

It matters not what "type" of man you cite, no man can marry another man. It applies to all men, equally. Discrimination is absent in this issue...

...except to socialists who intentionally circumvent the law to bring about the social, cultural change they demand.

The same issue concerning women is no different, obviously.

So, this discrimination objection is irrelevant to truth, no matter your emotional view on the subject. If you can't stop there, you have no logical business participating in adult debate. Claiming "discrimination" here is the same as claiming "racism" for whatever reason one wants. So, I don't expect the logical truth to make any difference to the usual emotional subjects...

...which applies overwhelmingly to buckprivateman, who obviously can't see logic thru the socialist-colored contact lenses he wears. He incessantly bothers vetteman to answer (paraphrasing), "What harm is gay marriage to society?"

What a socialist knucklehead: homosexual activity, let alone marriage, creates no society at all, because natural procreation is outlawed to the homosexual.

If homosexuality was exclusive, within a generation the human race would disappear. That's the fact about how "positive" homosexuality is to "society". But some of you go on with your childish logic...just like children, you don't care about the good of society as much as you demand your way. Sadly though, unlike children, so many of you are forever trapped in your immature, emotional, illogical socialism.

If gays and lesbians want to claim discrimination before a Court, they need to start out with Nature. But, they and their emotional supporters know the Truth about Nature - they have no case with that Supreme Judge...and that's why they turn to emotional human judges for their circumventing causes.

Homosexuality is best kept where all issues should be: in the individual. It's none of my business if you're homosexual. It's none of yours if I am. It's certainly not government's if either of us are...

...the more you socialist losers demand legal involvement, the more you're going to get. That's all swell and good when you got the government you like, but guess who gets burned at the stake first when government doesn't like you.

But, that's the logic of keeping government out of your life as humanly as possible - so that no matter what government is in power, the power they have in your life is limited eternally.

Socialists don't believe in limits...again, like little children, they not only believe they can have their cake and eat it, too, they demand it from all.

Socialists: totally superior to the laws of nature and totally tyrannical to the individual liberties of man.

BTW: I love the great debate this forum affords, but you vindictive, hateful folks have no place at my table. It's a shame, kinda, because my nature wants to believe that everyone - no matter how terrible they sometimes are - has something interesting to say. Reality, though, has proven to me haters truly do not have anything of interest that I want to hear, so...

zipman
SeanH
buckprivateman
DCL

YOU'RE IGNORED ! (credit to DTrump)

Liar: I believe I'm very liberal concerning you, but you are that close...I ask you sincerely to refrain from the vindictiveness and the childish immaturity. Thanx.

Answer, you are discriminating on the basis of gender.

Let us say that this second man was a woman insted. Then it would be perfectly legal for ANY of the listed first men to marry him(her). However, becuse of a differnce in his/her gender, and ONLY the and differnce in his/her, you say they can not get married. This means that they are being denied a right based solely on their gender, get it?

 

[jeninflorida]

I remember that exchange, fucking classic.

speaking of small men.....here u are

 

[overthebow]

If gays and lesbians want to claim discrimination before a Court, they need to start out with Nature. But, they and their emotional supporters know the Truth about Nature - they have no case with that Supreme Judge...and that's why they turn to emotional human judges for their circumventing causes.

God is a top, but he likes to switch every once in a while.

 

[overthebow]

I believe it was nucular iggy.

What's a nuclular iggy? I got put on one, but it felt like just another bouncy ball.

 

[swordandsandle]

By the same line of argument, if a man wants to marry somebody, he marries a woman. Common sense, right?

Yes, but that would meen we'd have to decide on a coherant line of arguement.

If we go on that line, you win the moral debate, but lose the economic debate. and vis versa for the other way.

 

[richard_daily]

What's a nuclular iggy? I got put on one, but it felt like just another bouncy ball.

It's the type of iggy that people who voted for W. bush twice use.

 

[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.

(^ Sorry I didn't address that bit...)

No, it's a valid point today. The different country, different economies, different people... there's just no way a "one-size-fits-all-of-North-America" approach to the affairs that the State governments deal with could work. Get your "EU" going, finally commit to it, and let us know how things are when Brussels manages your lives.

Alternately, you're welcome to petition to become America's 51st State. You'll have ten States larger than you in area, but you'll certainly be the most populous. Think of the electoral votes you would wield in a Presidential election!

 

[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.

Try to be specific pinhead. In YOUR opinion it isn't a state issue. I can see how you feel it's a federal issue in that the constitution speaks of marriage so often.

Until the mid 1800's the concept of marriage licenses didn't even exist. The whole concept was cooked up to keep those pesky Mormons restricted to one wife and even then marriage licenses were issued on a county by county basis. Some few had them, most did not.

The counties and states started this mess, let them sort it out.

Ishmael

 

[jeninflorida]

It's the type of iggy that people who voted for W. bush twice use.

bush(s) is/are still a better men than obama....

 

[Drixxx]

By the same line of argument, if a man wants to marry somebody, he marries a woman. Common sense, right?

No. Comparing who you stick your dick in at night and vital nation security issues like economic stability and military defense is just silly.

 

[richard_daily]

bush(s) is/are still a better men than obama....

That's nice... Too bad they were worse presidents.

 

[swordandsandle]

That's nice... Too bad they were worse presidents.

And everything else except ideological puppets, but what else does a conservative world need?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I see one BIG fucking problem with that quote. Probable.

That's not a problem at all. In what way do you think it is?