Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Then don't use personalization...





Because a girl fucking her dog or sister doesn't stop me from opening a casino either you fucking racist with the American Indian crack...

 

[jeninflorida]

Rich people don't pay taxes. say what? show me how I can stop paying taxes!

Using $100 bills to light bill clinton cigars would be more effective to the economic recover than allowing obama to blow the money....

Rich people don't pay taxes. They collect taxes during economic activity, an activity which usually involves people who are not rich and absorb the tax cost by paying a higher price for the goods and services the rich have to offer.

That's the big loophole; our schools tend to teach Marxist economic theory, not the Economic Theory of Capitalism.
__________________
It is popular today to blame capitalism for everything that displeases. Indeed, who is still aware of what he would have to forego if there were no "capitalism?" When great dreams do not come true, capitalism is charged immediately. This may be a proper procedure for party politics, but in Scientific discussion, it should be avoided.
Ludwig von Mises
A Critique of Interventionalism (1929)

 

[jeninflorida]

I'm not trying to drag you into anything. I'm trying to get you to justify an obviously illogical position.


No, he was interested in the law. That's his job.

please, what he said had NOTHING to do with the law

 

[Sean]

Then don't use personalization...





Because a girl fucking her dog or sister doesn't stop me from opening a casino either you fucking racist with the American Indian crack...

As you were the only one claiming that it was an attack on your rights, who else was I supposed to aim the question at?

Aww, you poor victim.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Again, gay marriage is not the goal.

You keep trying to drag me down into an emotional debate, but it will not work.

Gay unions are not marriages unless your goal is to redefine a cultural institution to replace it with your own culture. If it is okay to redefine marriage as a "right" then the logical conclusion is that almost ANYTHING can be labeled a marriage...

You see, people don't have to get "married" to express their love, anymore than they have to be in love to get married.

Marriage is a cultural institution, certainly. And the state has no business fucking with that sort of thing.

However, at the same time, it is a legal institution, conferring certain privileges upon those who enter into the legal contract.

Once the State begins issuing licenses for it, it becomes a matter of law, regardless of whether it is also a matter of culture.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't understand that statement.

The consolidation of federal power under Lincoln, under FDR... seriously? No change?



A State may pass a law which says that lunch counters must be segregated according to race, but it will be null and void.

This amendment to the California Constitution may be null and void for the same reason.

You missed my point there byron. Regardless of the form of government, or the mutation of the form of government, you can look to the past and see a virtually identical form. There is nothing new in that context.

The proper way to deal with the issue is to amend the constitution if it is important enough to be deemed a federal issue. And I don't see it as equivalent to the lunch counter issue. One is commerce, the other isn't.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

please, what he said had NOTHING to do with the law

Jen, I refuse to argue with you because you're too stupid to bother with. All you do is regurgitate whatever talking points you were fed today. You have no understanding of law, government, or, from what I've seen, just about anything else.

 

[jeninflorida]

Jen, I refuse to argue with you because you're too stupid to bother with. All you do is regurgitate whatever talking points you were fed today. You have no understanding of law, government, or, from what I've seen, just about anything else.

Are you such a tart, man up

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Are you such a tart, man up

Go away, the grownups are talking. The minute you entered this thread you could feel the collective IQ plummet.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Marriage is a cultural institution, certainly. And the state has no business fucking with that sort of thing.

However, at the same time, it is a legal institution, conferring certain privileges upon those who enter into the legal contract.

Once the State begins issuing licenses for it, it becomes a matter of law, regardless of whether it is also a matter of culture.

So, my electrical license makes me a plumber too?

 

[kbate]

Gay unions are not marriages unless your goal is to redefine a cultural institution to replace it with your own culture. If it is okay to redefine marriage as a "right" then the logical conclusion is that almost ANYTHING can be labeled a marriage...
.

So, your entire argument comes down to protecting the definition of marriage as written in the 84th edition of Webster's Revised Collegiate?

that's it?

 

[Sean]

It's a rare day that I'm on the same side of an argument as kbate.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

As you were the only one claiming that it was an attack on your rights, who else was I supposed to aim the question at?

Aww, you poor victim.

I did not claim it was an attack on my rights.

What I did, and probably poorly, was to attempt to use the word in the same way the opposition does. That's why you don't see it in the main body of my remarks, which, btw, you ignored completely.

You screwing your dog doesn't stop me from owning a casino either...

But culturally, we're just not into that sort of relationship.

But then, as per the judge, we're just BIGOTS.

 

[kbate]

It's a rare day that I'm on the same side of an argument as kbate.

I'm scared too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

I did not claim it was an attack on my rights.

What I did, and probably poorly, was to attempt to use the word in the same way the opposition does. That's why you don't see it in the main body of my remarks, which, btw, you ignored completely.

You screwing your dog doesn't stop me from owning a casino either...

But culturally, we're just not into that sort of relationship.

But then, as per the judge, we're just BIGOTS.

You can make all the false equivalencies you like, it doesn't make your argument any less valid. For someone that claims to hold individual liberty sacrosanct you're doing a complicated dance in your defence of curtailing it.

 

[Sean]

I'm scared too.

LOL. 'morning, Dave. Good to see you around.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

The proper way to deal with the issue is to amend the constitution if it is important enough to be deemed a federal issue. And I don't see it as equivalent to the lunch counter issue. One is commerce, the other isn't.

Commerce has nothing to do with it, any more than it has to do with segregated washrooms.

But I think you finally got my point: if the Supreme Court fails to put down Art. 1 Sec. 7.5 of the California Constitution, then there will eventually be a new Amendment to the US Constitution.

"But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." — Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So, your entire argument comes down to protecting the definition of marriage as written in the 84th edition of Webster's Revised Collegiate?

that's it?

Words have meaning kbate.

Otherwise, you have no common culture.

If you have no common culture, you get culture wars and this issue is merely a symptom of a larger cultural war, one in which Individual Rights are under assault in favor of group rights. This is an emotionally charged issue, like other class divisions such as wealth envy and progressive taxation. They know they can get you to work for them on this one issue, just like they can get Perg to work with them on ecology and firespin to defend the progressive income tax. It's a tool described by Alinsky and Rand (The Fountainhead). Once you yield reason on your issue, it erodes your ability to argue on other issues. Your side is as hung up on a word as my side, even after we tell you we will work with you to get every single benefit you think you have coming to you as a couple. You just are not willing to meet anyone half way. It's your way or the bye-way... Then we get to killing each other until we find a reconciliation.
__________________
"The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies."
Ayn Rand

Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move.

Political Realists see the world as it is: ... In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of "the common good" and then acted out in life on the basis of common greed...; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.... In the world as it is, the solution of each problem inevitably creates a new one.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

 

[Sean]

Dave?

Old joke between k and me.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think the judge said 7 million Californians were mentally defective or words to that effect. No bias there..move along citizen.

Yeah...



That sounds like it's rooted DEEP in Constitutional law...



(Sean, that's SARCASM...)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Dave?

Dave's not here man...