Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[overthebow]

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

An authoritarian. They all want to be tops, but get them alone and they will bottom in a heartbeat.

 

[richard_daily]

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

Cowbell. Lots and lots of cowbell.

 

[Luk]

In YOUR opinion it isn't a state issue.

That's funny, Chevette said the same thing but you didn't call him out on it. Wonder why. Nah, I don't, double standards seem to run rampant in your circle.

 

[jeninflorida]

Cowbell. Lots and lots of cowbell.

And to believe in the fantasy that government is good....government employees never lie....and that obama is the dream...in the end most will wake up in a couple of years to the obama hurricane wreckage

 

[swordandsandle]

An authoritarian. They all want to be tops, but get them alone and they will bottom in a heartbeat.

This reminds me of the Japanese Government during WWII

Six people had the real power, and asserted that power through a puppet emporer. They used national security (even though they violated other country's security) national honor (even though they used tactics that where quite dishonorable) national culture( a quase religous right fervor) and the threat of violence and death to keep people quite and happy, all the while whale sapping the wealth of the world.

Corporations do roughly the same thing, if not held down by a government. Governments do the same thing if not held down by the people. Conservatives want to break down the government becuse they just don't want to get involved with it.

No bigger enemy to a republic then a lathargic populace.

 

[swordandsandle]

And to believe in the fantasy that government is good....government employees never lie....and that obama is the dream...in the end most will wake up in a couple of years to the obama hurricane wreckage

... you do realize that we are speaking of a conservative soceity, correct?

Yet, you appernetly say that your conservative talk-show hosts never lie, that Anarchy ( which has proven to be a terrible thing, hunderds of times) is the dream. Then, you wake up in chains at the Bussniess Trust's factory.

 

[Byron In Exile]

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.

You speak like a green girl.

It seems you confuse "The Federalist Papers" with "the Federalists."

Jefferson's only objection to the Constitution as it was presented to him was its lack of a Bill of Rights.

James Madison, also known as "The Father of the Constitution," was Jefferson's protégé.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

 

[richard_daily]

And to believe in the fantasy that government is good....government employees never lie....and that obama is the dream...in the end most will wake up in a couple of years to the obama hurricane wreckage

I don't think you're following the same conversation that the rest of us are...

 

[firespin]

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

Not to be fussy about it, but marriage is not the same as sticking your dick in something, and tax policy isn't national security.

If it "makes sense" to keep women out of combat, or to exempt people from paying taxes, because, well, it's obvious, then it "makes sense" to have one each bride and groom for the same reason.

All of those are arguments about discrimination, and lots of people agree with each of them. (Though not necessarily the same people for each proposition.)

 

[jeninflorida]

... you do realize that we are speaking of a conservative soceity, correct?

Yet, you appernetly say that your conservative talk-show hosts never lie, that Anarchy ( which has proven to be a terrible thing, hunderds of times) is the dream. Then, you wake up in chains at the Bussniess Trust's factory.

Oh goodie...and what talk show did I watch today?

i'll keep things simple:
business is good....government is bad.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

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

So you don't think contracts should be honored from state to state? That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but the law disagrees with you.

In your scenario, in lieu of getting a divorce and potentially losing assets one brings into or earns as a benefit of the contract, one party can simply move across state lines. And in doing so leave the other party no relief.

 

[swordandsandle]

Not to be fussy about it, but marriage is not the same as sticking your dick in something, and tax policy isn't national security.

If it "makes sense" to keep women out of combat, or to exempt people from paying taxes, because, well, it's obvious, then it "makes sense" to have one each bride and groom for the same reason.

All of those are arguments about discrimination, and lots of people agree with each of them. (Though not necessarily the same people for each proposition.)

Woman should not be excused from the draft becuse they are woman. Being a woman is not something you can just change on the spot; it's an ingrained part of you (I know their is surgury to change this but, if you need complex surgical procedures to change it, it's part of you.)

Somebody should not have to pay a lower percentage of their income in tax becuse of how much they make. You have the same oppritunity to use government resources, under the same circumastances, as anybody else. Therefor, it is an equality system.

Being homosexual is (for most) an ingraned part of their brain. As such, denying them to marry the consentual person of their choosing becuse of this (and their gender, see above) is unfair.

 

[HB1965]

You speak like a green girl.

It seems you confuse "The Federalist Papers" with "the Federalists."

Jefferson's only objection to the Constitution as it was presented to him was its lack of a Bill of Rights.

James Madison, also known as "The Father of the Constitution," was Jefferson's protégé.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

I'm "green" to you because you disagree with me.

The Federalist Papers were the words of the actual framers and it speaks to the intent.

Madison endorsed interpretation and Jefferson waffled on interpretation and his stance on the constitution itself. Because they did share some fundamental ideas in common they were able to maintain a lifelong friendship but they were things they did not agree on and the their thoughts on the Constitution was one.

And I wonder at your confusion on the last comment. You intended it to be something about Jefferson supporting literal interpretation but he uses the word probable which kills that idea.

 

[swordandsandle]

Oh goodie...and what talk show did I watch today?

i'll keep things simple:
business is good....government is bad.

*Beep* wrong answer.

Business and government (and talk shows) are a tool and, like any tool, have the intentions of the people using them at heart. Business can be good if the people using it are good, and government can be good if the people using it are good. Same goes for a bad tool; it isen't the tool's fault, but the people using the tool.

And I don't apprecate it when you treat me like i'm brain dead. Your answer made just about as much sence as mine did (maybe less).

 

[TikkaT3]

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..

I fail to see how two men/women getting married has any impact on a straight couples marriage, and that is the main argument they use against it. Hell let them wed, I can think of a lot bigger issues in the country today to get worked up over.

 

[Drixxx]

Not to be fussy about it, but marriage is not the same as sticking your dick in something, and tax policy isn't national security.

If it "makes sense" to keep women out of combat, or to exempt people from paying taxes, because, well, it's obvious, then it "makes sense" to have one each bride and groom for the same reason.

All of those are arguments about discrimination, and lots of people agree with each of them. (Though not necessarily the same people for each proposition.)

You really believe that economic stability has nothing to do with national security? Maybe you should ask some Soviets about that. Also I never mentioned anything about keeping women out of combat.

 

[jeninflorida]

I fail to see how two men/women getting married has any impact on a straight couples marriage, and that is the main argument they use against it. Hell let them wed, I can think of a lot bigger issues in the country today to get worked up over.

clearly .... the judge was on acid

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I fail to see how two men/women getting married has any impact on a straight couples marriage, and that is the main argument they use against it. Hell let them wed, I can think of a lot bigger issues in the country today to get worked up over.

They can't.

vetteman was asked to do so hours ago and has refused on the grounds that he can't.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm "green" to you because you disagree with me.

No, you're "green" because you're obviously trying to swim in the deep end of the pool with only water-wings to keep you afloat.

The Federalist Papers were the words of the actual framers and it speaks to the intent.

Madison endorsed interpretation and Jefferson waffled on interpretation and his stance on the constitution itself. Because they did share some fundamental ideas in common they were able to maintain a lifelong friendship but they were things they did not agree on and the their thoughts on the Constitution was one.

That makes little sense, and what little sense it makes is wrong.

And I wonder at your confusion on the last comment. You intended it to be something about Jefferson supporting literal interpretation but he uses the word probable which kills that idea.

No, not "literal" interpretation, but the intent behind the words. Read more carefully.

 

[firespin]

You really believe that economic stability has nothing to do with national security? Maybe you should ask some Soviets about that if you can find some. Also I never mentioned anything about keeping women out of combat.

I said "tax policy," you could look it up. That's what was being discussed, not economic stability, which is only tangentially related to tax policy.

And I did look up your quote: "If you need to fight a war you go to able bodied young men."

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Do you suppose that Judge Walker was talking about the reality of the Constitution as it was written by the framers?

Moron.

The reality of the Constitution is that it has been amended many times and the understanding of it has been determined in over 200 years of jurisprudence.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Do you suppose that Judge Walker was talking about the reality of the Constitution as it was written by the framers?

Nota Bene: Thomas Jefferson was not a "framer."

lol...

 

[swordandsandle]

Do you suppose that Judge Walker was talking about the reality of the Constitution as it was written by the framers?

Yes.

You are denying somebody (a homosexual person) the right (to persue happyness by marrying the consetnaul adult of your choosing) on the basis of a trait that had not harmed the country or an individual willingly (they happen to like members of their own sex). Freedom means Freedom, not "Freedom only in black"

 

[firespin]

One thing that puzzles me.

Why was it a huge conflict of interest for a judge in Lousiana to rule on oil drilling when he owned some mutual funds containing energy stocks...

...but it's a non-issue if a gay judge rules on whether gay marriage is constitutional? Doesn't he stand to benefit personally?

I don't particularly care about the ruling, but it seems odd that those who were up in arms about the other judge don't seem to care about this, perhaps because of the decision.