| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Xomicron" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 09:44:31 AM |
| Object: |
Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
July 4th, 1776: The signing of the Declaration of Independence by
these *MEN*...
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr., Thomas Lynch,
junr., Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of
Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja.
Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John
Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John
Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine,
Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, C. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver
Wolcott.
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Oh yeah, some woman helped and sewed a flag. I think there was one that
was a nurse on the battlefield too.
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 01:20:42 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Horn" <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in message
news:406DEB66.F971E0B6@Horn.uk...
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."
to enshrine your bigotry into this used
to be fine document. If you people hate the USA and its
Constitution so much, get the hell out. Go live in Saudi Arabia
where you will fit right in, and hey they cut the heads of
homosexuals off. Home Sweet Home.
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Bigotry.
It is a vote to yell: Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Remember the Twilight Zone episode where criminals were sent to
planetoids to serve out their sentences in solitary? We'll be glad to
see Xomicron segregated from the entire human race, if it will make
him happy. Bigotry like Xomicron's deserves solitary confinement.
After all, since he thinks no woman can be his equal, then no
propagation for him. Since he hates any race but his own and the other
races aren't about to leave, I guess he'll have to. Bye, Xomicron. We
don't hate to see you go, stupid cross-posting troll.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
02 Apr 2004 08:12:18 PM |
|
|
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DEB66.F971E0B6@Horn.uk:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours,
Room temperature: 295 degrees Kelvin.
That sounds about right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 07:30:38 PM |
|
|
On 3 Apr 2004 02:12:18 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> thought hard and
said:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DEB66.F971E0B6@Horn.uk:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours,
Room temperature: 295 degrees Kelvin.
That sounds about right.
Wow. You must be a scientist!
A 295 IQ is impossible.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Riske james_riske@mail15_dot_com" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 08:41:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Anonymous filthy *****"Daniel
Horn/Dan W. Rather/Dave Lamma" <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment).
Completely false, a woman has the same right to marry as a man does,
normal women marry the opposite sex, just like normal men, the rights
of women have not been violated one single iota whatsoever, anonymous
*****.
<snip>
***** babble.
-----
Read it and weep faggots
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table10.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table16.htm
The liberals motto:
Free speach for me but not for thee.
The Savage Nation:
http://www.michaelsavage.com
http://www.640whlo.com
What liberals and faggots don't want you to know:
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 01:58:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
I fear that some Blacks who are supporting the proposed amendment are
going to be unpleasantly surprised if it actually passes. There is a
very basic lesson that, for some odd reason, many find impossible to
understand; one cannot violate the rights of others without
endangering one's own rights.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 07:16:36 AM |
|
|
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
I fear that some Blacks who are supporting the proposed amendment are
going to be unpleasantly surprised if it actually passes. There is a
very basic lesson that, for some odd reason, many find impossible to
understand; one cannot violate the rights of others without
endangering one's own rights.
Lets start the slippery slop now ;) First it is a ban on gay marriage,
then marriage of people from differing religions, then differing area
codes, then differing races. That would be a Republicans wet dream.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 03:19:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 09:58:27 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
I fear that some Blacks who are supporting the proposed amendment are
going to be unpleasantly surprised if it actually passes.
3) Why would they be? The amendment makes no reference to race, not
even indirectly, and you aren't doing anything but waving the bloody
shirt and playing the racial card.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 09:44:44 AM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 09:58:27 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
I fear that some Blacks who are supporting the proposed amendment are
going to be unpleasantly surprised if it actually passes.
3) Why would they be? The amendment makes no reference to race, not
even indirectly, and you aren't doing anything but waving the bloody
shirt and playing the racial card.
I'm sure this is too complex an issue to tell you, but here goes.
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon the
9th Amendment which provides fundamental rights as marriage,
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated. Told
you it would be too complex. The ban on marriage is based on
the sexual organs one is born with the very same as the race
blacks are born with, because after all, a gay can marry a
lesbian, their sexual orientation nor their sexual behavior has
nothing what so ever to do with it. Only the sexual organs
they were born with the very same as the race blacks are
born with is the deciding factor. The issues are exactly the
same. Who does a hermaphrodite legally marry if the only
legal marriage is one between a man and a woman?
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003)
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny
by making their private sexual conduct a crime, ... the Court's
obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its
own moral code".
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage
is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental
Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental. Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Poster Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 01:23:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 05:13:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 07:07:15 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
Bushit !
The context was the need for a Constitutional Amendment
to stop what is right now legal by virtue of the 9th and
14th Amendments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 09:08:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:07:15 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
Bushit !
The context was the need for a Constitutional Amendment
to stop what is right now legal by virtue of the 9th and
14th Amendments.
Obviously, Bork is critical of the Supreme Court's reasoning in the
Texas case and is expressing the fear that the same reasoning would
lead to approval of gay marriages - that doesn't mean that the Supreme
Court has yet said that gay marriage is now "legal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 11:46:41 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:07:15 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
Bushit !
The context was the need for a Constitutional Amendment
to stop what is right now legal by virtue of the 9th and
14th Amendments.
Obviously, Bork is critical of the Supreme Court's reasoning in the
Texas case
What a freaking idiot, that was written in 2001
and is expressing the fear that the same reasoning would
lead to approval of gay marriages - that doesn't mean that the Supreme
Court has yet said that gay marriage is now "legal".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 01:17:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:46:41 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:07:15 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
Bushit !
The context was the need for a Constitutional Amendment
to stop what is right now legal by virtue of the 9th and
14th Amendments.
Obviously, Bork is critical of the Supreme Court's reasoning in the
Texas case
What a freaking idiot, that was written in 2001
Fine, fine; then he is critical of some other case which shows the
direction in which the Supreme Court is headed.
and is expressing the fear that the same reasoning would
lead to approval of gay marriages - that doesn't mean that the Supreme
Court has yet said that gay marriage is now "legal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 07:23:16 PM |
|
|
In article <4rhu601erotq9r64opue6qidqakgs3bdoj@4ax.com>,
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
Actually, it is the Constitution, if anything, that Bork is attacking,
not the Supreme Court
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Poster Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 06:58:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:13:36 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
I only read what was [improperly] quoted. But go ahead with
your ad hominem attacks if it makes you feel better.
Incidentally, I *never* indicated *anywhere* in my post that
Bork supported gay marriage. Also who is this "boyfriend"
your referring to?
You sure don't seem like much of a lawyer to me. More like
a bigoted southern sheriff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 09:01:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:58:14 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:13:36 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
I only read what was [improperly] quoted.
Thank you for that magnanimous concession.
In other words, you've got your foot in your mouth now. You talked
about something that you don't know anything about.
But go ahead with
your ad hominem attacks if it makes you feel better.
Incidentally, I *never* indicated *anywhere* in my post that
Bork supported gay marriage.
Obviously, the point of your post is that Daniel Horn is saying that
Bork does support gay marriage, and you are using this mistaken belief
as a basis for urging support of it yourself.
Also who is this "boyfriend"
your referring to?
That would be Mr. Horn, would it not?
You sure don't seem like much of a lawyer to me. More like
a bigoted southern sheriff.
You are the one who is gratuitously brinigng race into the discussion.
You sound like a member of ACT-UP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Poster Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 12:16:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:01:34 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:58:14 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:13:36 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
I only read what was [improperly] quoted.
Thank you for that magnanimous concession.
You should try it sometime. Your behaviour makes me think you aren't
much of a man. It likely explains why women hate you so much.
In other words, you've got your foot in your mouth now. You talked
about something that you don't know anything about.
I admit it when I make a mistake. But now I'm not so sure I should
have done so it in this post. Was Bork's statement really part of a
proof by contradiction? I relied on your interpretation that it was,
but now, having seen your penchant for deception, I'm not so sure that
was a wise thing to do.
But go ahead with
your ad hominem attacks if it makes you feel better.
Incidentally, I *never* indicated *anywhere* in my post that
Bork supported gay marriage.
Obviously, the point of your post is that Daniel Horn is saying that
Bork does support gay marriage, and you are using this mistaken belief
as a basis for urging support of it yourself.
No, my point was that he thought gay marriage was constitutional and
that the Supreme Court would uphold it against challenges.
Also who is this "boyfriend"
your referring to?
I've never met him or communicated with him. Why do you make things
up? Do you do the same thing in court? Do you manufacture evidence,
too? I don't believe you are a real lawyer. I don't believe you
could hack the professional and ethical requirements of the legal
profession.
That would be Mr. Horn, would it not?
You sure don't seem like much of a lawyer to me. More like
a bigoted southern sheriff.
You are the one who is gratuitously brinigng race into the discussion.
Where? I made no such reference. Are you on drugs? Or are you just
another one of those usenet kooks. I notice there are postings about
you on alt.usenet.kooks.
You sound like a member of ACT-UP.
I've never even been to a gay pride parade. I bet you've been to all
of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 03:06:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:16:56 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:01:34 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:58:14 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:13:36 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
I only read what was [improperly] quoted.
Thank you for that magnanimous concession.
You should try it sometime.
I'd have to be wrong first.
Your behaviour makes me think you aren't
much of a man. It likely explains why women hate you so much.
Anything is possible.
In other words, you've got your foot in your mouth now. You talked
about something that you don't know anything about.
I admit it when I make a mistake. But now I'm not so sure I should
have done so it in this post. Was Bork's statement really part of a
proof by contradiction? I relied on your interpretation that it was,
but now, having seen your penchant for deception, I'm not so sure that
was a wise thing to do.
Do you imagine that Robert Bork thinks that gay marriage is/should be
constitutional?
That's a gimme, isn't it?
But go ahead with
your ad hominem attacks if it makes you feel better.
Incidentally, I *never* indicated *anywhere* in my post that
Bork supported gay marriage.
Obviously, the point of your post is that Daniel Horn is saying that
Bork does support gay marriage, and you are using this mistaken belief
as a basis for urging support of it yourself.
No, my point was that he thought gay marriage was constitutional and
that the Supreme Court would uphold it against challenges.
"He" being? Horn or Bork?
Also who is this "boyfriend"
your referring to?
I've never met him or communicated with him. Why do you make things
up? Do you do the same thing in court? Do you manufacture evidence,
too? I don't believe you are a real lawyer. I don't believe you
could hack the professional and ethical requirements of the legal
profession.
I'm not here to convince you of that.
That would be Mr. Horn, would it not?
You sure don't seem like much of a lawyer to me. More like
a bigoted southern sheriff.
You are the one who is gratuitously brinigng race into the discussion.
Where? I made no such reference.
Oh no? What am I - what is ANY reader - supposed to derive from the
phrase "bigoted southern sheriff"?
OF COURSE you brought race into the discussion.
Are you on drugs? Or are you just
another one of those usenet kooks. I notice there are postings about
you on alt.usenet.kooks.
Pay no attention to the kooks behind the curtain.
You sound like a member of ACT-UP.
I've never even been to a gay pride parade.
But with a moniker like "Poster Boy", I'm going to guess that you know
a few people who have.
Now don't get all UPTIGHT. I said that I was just "guessing".
I bet you've been to all
of them.
How many of them are there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 10:58:25 AM |
|
|
Poster Boy wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:01:34 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:58:14 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:13:36 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:23:03 -0500, Poster Boy
<PosterBoy@localhost.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
As a reactionary rightist myself, I am sitting up and taking notice of
your idiocy and that of your boyfriend.
Bork is most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage. He is
criticizing the Supreme Court decision by subjecting it to a reductio
ad absurdum analysis.
I only read what was [improperly] quoted.
Thank you for that magnanimous concession.
You should try it sometime. Your behaviour makes me think you aren't
much of a man. It likely explains why women hate you so much.
In other words, you've got your foot in your mouth now. You talked
about something that you don't know anything about.
I admit it when I make a mistake. But now I'm not so sure I should
have done so it in this post. Was Bork's statement really part of a
proof by contradiction? I relied on your interpretation that it was,
but now, having seen your penchant for deception, I'm not so sure that
was a wise thing to do.
But go ahead with
your ad hominem attacks if it makes you feel better.
Incidentally, I *never* indicated *anywhere* in my post that
Bork supported gay marriage.
Obviously, the point of your post is that Daniel Horn is saying that
Bork does support gay marriage, and you are using this mistaken belief
as a basis for urging support of it yourself.
No, my point was that he thought gay marriage was constitutional and
that the Supreme Court would uphold it against challenges.
Bork felt exactly that, that it is Constitutional at this time, and
unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed poor boo boo
would have to live with two guys next door married just like
they are. Just like the poor boo boos had to face a black and
white married just like them next door.
And since it is Constitutional at this time the rights of intersexuals
and homosexual are being violated, and the US Government
is breaking the law, so Bush wants to change the law (the
Constitution) to stop what is now legal, just as with Prohibition.
Also who is this "boyfriend"
your referring to?
I've never met him or communicated with him. Why do you make things
up? Do you do the same thing in court? Do you manufacture evidence,
too? I don't believe you are a real lawyer. I don't believe you
could hack the professional and ethical requirements of the legal
profession.
When they say if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided
for you, well this is what you get. Those with such a bad record
that the only time they win is by sheer luck, and no one will hire
them, and they don't make enough to go into business for themselves.
Real practicing lawyers don't have time to spend on usenet.
That would be Mr. Horn, would it not?
You sure don't seem like much of a lawyer to me. More like
a bigoted southern sheriff.
You are the one who is gratuitously brinigng race into the discussion.
Where? I made no such reference. Are you on drugs? Or are you just
another one of those usenet kooks. I notice there are postings about
you on alt.usenet.kooks.
You sound like a member of ACT-UP.
I've never even been to a gay pride parade. I bet you've been to all
of them.
Pretending to be absolutely disgusted by the whole thing, then
during sex all those men dance through their head.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 03:04:36 PM |
|
|
Poster Boy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn
<Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
...
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
...
Note the author of these lines: Robert Bork. The
conservatives' conservative if ever one existed. Even the
Reactionary Religious Right KKKlans will have to sit up and
take notice at that.
It have been my experience that a stupid as they are they don't
even know how Bork is and usually call him a gay activist
with a homosexual agenda.
Bigotry is born of ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 06:14:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:44 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 09:58:27 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:406DCD40.15BB05B@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Years of fighting and dying by *MEN* to defeat tyranny results in the
creation of the greatest nation on earth.
Too bad your lot have done everything in your power to destroy it
with frivolous US Constitutional Amendment that null the 9th
and 14th Amendments,
It does neither.
As complex as this issue is for room temperature IQs like
yours, no wonder you do not understand it. Marriage is a
Fundamental right of man it cannot be denied (9th Amendment),
and if a man can marry a woman then a woman must have the
same right as the man to marry a woman or her equal rights
have been violated (equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment). The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct
attack of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make illegal
that which is legal right now. Bush and the states are breaking
Constitutional law in not allowing intersexuals to legally marry
at all.
I fear that some Blacks who are supporting the proposed amendment are
going to be unpleasantly surprised if it actually passes.
3) Why would they be? The amendment makes no reference to race, not
even indirectly, and you aren't doing anything but waving the bloody
shirt and playing the racial card.
I'm sure this is too complex an issue to tell you, but here goes.
Not at all, Horny. I have a license to practice law in my
jurisdiction. Do you?
But I suspect that I will find your explanation complex enough to
justify the bromide "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Well, let's see...
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon the
9th Amendment which provides fundamental rights as marriage,
As I have explained to you in another thread, the 9th Amendment
provides no such fundamental right.
You obviously have not read it. Now I am pretty certain that you are
not an attorney.
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Told
you it would be too complex.
Well, it is as complex as the voices in your head. It is as complex as
your last acid trip and the hallucinations that it produced.
You are not merely quoting the 9th and 14th Amendments out of context
- you are making something up that isn't in them at all.
The ban on marriage is based on
the sexual organs one is born with the very same as the race
blacks are born with, because after all, a gay can marry a
lesbian, their sexual orientation nor their sexual behavior has
nothing what so ever to do with it.
Only the sexual organs
they were born with the very same as the race blacks are
born with is the deciding factor. The issues are exactly the
same.
Well, I'll give you some credit for creativity. So for the purpose of
making your argument, you appear to be acknowledging that no one is
discriminating against homosexuals - though I suspect that you will
later change your mind. But for NOW - you're phrasing it as a form of
gender discrimination.
Well, inasmuch as the concept of marriage is inextricably bound up
with the concept of procreation, which is an exclusively heterosexual
function (though not all heterosexual marriages lead to procreation),
why is it WRONG to discriminate on the basis of gender in this
context?
Who does a hermaphrodite legally marry if the only
legal marriage is one between a man and a woman?
Another creativity nickel for Horny.
I'll answer you forthrighly. I do not know whom, if anyone, a
hermaphrodite would legally have the right to marry. But the issue
isn't going to come up very often, is it? This is not an issue about
hermaphrodites.
"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S.
Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to
homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law
forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection
when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry?"
By Judge Robert H. Bork, US Supreme Court nominee
Sorry, Horny. I'm taking my creativity nickels away from you because
you are either behaving right now like a four-square idiot or you are
behaving disingenuously to the maximum possible extent. Maybe both.
Robert Bork is NOT in favor of gay marriage. He's using the example
as a reductio ad absurdum to attack a prior Supreme Court decision.
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003)
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny
by making their private sexual conduct a crime, ... the Court's
obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its
own moral code".
Well, it is just this sort of mongoloid reasoning that has invoked the
ire of, as you say, US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."
Dealt with this in my response to a different post of yours.
One man's "private prejudice" is another man's "legitimate state
interest".
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Again, I ask, why did you stop mid-sentence? Is there something
following "fundamental" that you didn't want anyone to read?
Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage
is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental
Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater had a wife and couldn't keep her.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Supreme Court was holding that
there is an untrammeled right for anyone to marry anyone else at any
time?
Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental. Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)
It is not so fundamental a right as to escape legitimate scrutiny.
Saying that something is a "fundamental" right doesn't make it an
absolute one.
The right to vote is also fundamental, but the authorities impose
legal and geographical requirements that must be met before it can be
exercised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 07:52:09 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon the
9th Amendment which provides fundamental rights as marriage,
As I have explained to you in another thread, the 9th Amendment
provides no such fundamental right.
You obviously have not read it. Now I am pretty certain that you are
not an attorney.
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 09:24:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:52:09 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote:
The Marriage Ban Amendment is a direct attack upon the
9th Amendment which provides fundamental rights as marriage,
As I have explained to you in another thread, the 9th Amendment
provides no such fundamental right.
You obviously have not read it. Now I am pretty certain that you are
not an attorney.
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Yes.
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, "equal" means "same" to a lefty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 10:47:42 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Yes.
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, "equal" means "same" to a lefty.
Ah, that explains a great deal. You assume that people who disagree
with you are "lefties". And of course, people who make such
assumptions tend to be right-wing morons. That also explains why you
think that unequal treatment is somehow equal.
Alas that says nothing about whether your claim to be a lawyer has any
merit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 11:00:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 04:47:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Yes.
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, "equal" means "same" to a lefty.
Ah, that explains a great deal. You assume that people who disagree
with you are "lefties".
Of course, you're a lefty, Ray Fischer. Hell, your reputation
precedes you as a San Fran Freakshow Haight Ashbury lunatic left-wing
fringe fellow-traveler.
You're not exactly a stranger, you know.
And of course, people who make such
assumptions tend to be right-wing morons.
Maybe, but since you are a known quantity, it's not exactly an
assumption on my part, is it?
That also explains why you
think that unequal treatment is somehow equal.
And it explains why you think that "equal treatment" mandates
sameness.
Alas that says nothing about whether your claim to be a lawyer has any
merit.
No, I suppose not, but I don't care whether you believe it or not. If
I'm not a lawyer, I'm arguing pretty well for one who isn't a lawyer,
aren't I?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
03 Apr 2004 11:20:31 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 04:47:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Yes.
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, "equal" means "same" to a lefty.
Ah, that explains a great deal. You assume that people who disagree
with you are "lefties".
Of course, you're a lefty, Ray Fischer.
And you're a racist bigot.
And of course, people who make such
assumptions tend to be right-wing morons.
Maybe, but since you are a known quantity, it's not exactly an
assumption on my part, is it?
It's an outright lie.
That also explains why you
think that unequal treatment is somehow equal.
And it explains why you think that "equal treatment" mandates
sameness.
Another lie.
Alas that says nothing about whether your claim to be a lawyer has any
merit.
No, I suppose not, but I don't care whether you believe it or not.
At this point, given your willingness to lie, I'd say that none of
your claims are worth anything. You're just another pro-liar
control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: Men created the greatest nation on the planet |
04 Apr 2004 12:38:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:20:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 04:47:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzlieantagonist@earthlink.net> wrote:
and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that
says if a man can marry a woman then to be equal before the
law a woman must have the same right as a man to marry a
woman or her equal protection right has been violated.
There is not even the remotest suggestion of such a "right" in the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You're going to try and claim that gays don't have an equal right
to the smae legal priviledges and protections of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy?
Yes.
Apparently "equal" doesn't mean equal to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, "equal" means "same" to a lefty.
Ah, that explains a great deal. You assume that people who disagree
with you are "lefties".
Of course, you're a lefty, Ray Fischer.
And you're a racist bigot.
Okay, but you still owe me three or four more of those - you fell way
behind earlier today.
And of course, people who make such
assumptions tend to be right-wing morons.
Maybe, but since you are a known quantity, it's not exactly an
assumption on my part, is it?
It's an outright lie.
What is an outright lie? That you're a lefty? That's a lie?
What are you then, a righty? I don't think so.
That also explains why you
think that unequal treatment is somehow equal.
And it explains why you think that "equal treatment" mandates
sameness.
Another lie.
What are you talking about? Look at what's in the brackets above.
You've been arguing gays have an equal right to the "smae" legal
priviledges and protections of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy?
Obviously, you DO believe that equal treatment mandates "smaeness".
Alas that says nothing about whether your claim to be a lawyer has any
merit.
No, I suppose not, but I don't care whether you believe it or not.
At this point, given your willingne | | | | | | | | | | |
