| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeff Thomas" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2004 01:41:04 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1099686217.fsKq9/5opgI4/LpBHMAsmw@bubbanews...
Eleven states had initiatives on the ballot declaring marriage as being a
union between "a man and a woman". Eleven states approved these by
landslide
proportions. Gay marriage is dead in the water, as it should be. Decency
has
once again prevailed.
Exactly. You didn't have to vote for Bush to get this outcome. Most people
are against gay marriage. Fundies sacrifice true democracy for a non issue.
What sheep! How do you think Hitler got into power? He appealed to German
patriotism and family values.. He didn't have a referendum on war in Europe.
Jeff
.
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 06:29:04 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman.
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men and
women differently.
Those treatments are forms of discrimination. They happen to be
acceptable forms under Equal Protection.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 06:37:52 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411101629.22b53df0@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman.
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men
and
women differently.
Those treatments are forms of discrimination. They happen to be
acceptable forms under Equal Protection.
Nonetheless, it is well precendented. You can call it discrimination if you
like to inaccurate, but it isn't because it applies equally to all people.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
No but I'll take odds on reason v Josh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 06:43:17 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411101629.22b53df0@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men
and
women differently.
Those treatments are forms of discrimination. They happen to be
acceptable forms under Equal Protection.
Nonetheless, it is well precendented. You can call it discrimination if you
like to inaccurate, but it isn't because it applies equally to all people.
Equal application does not automatically imply no discrimination as
evidenced by anti-miscegenation laws. Where the law treats the genders
differently, it is discrimination whenever one gender is preferred over
the other. Sometimes that discrimination is OK. Most times it is not.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
No but I'll take odds on reason v Josh.
Care to address the substance of my remark?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 06:54:35 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192B5A5.1080705@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411101629.22b53df0@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men
and
women differently.
Those treatments are forms of discrimination. They happen to be
acceptable forms under Equal Protection.
Nonetheless, it is well precendented. You can call it discrimination if
you like to inaccurate, but it isn't because it applies equally to all
people.
Equal application does not automatically imply no discrimination as
evidenced by anti-miscegenation laws. Where the law treats the genders
differently, it is discrimination whenever one gender is preferred over
the other. Sometimes that discrimination is OK. Most times it is not.
In the case of marriage as with other matters of family law, the courts have
ruled virutally without exception that distinction on the basis of sex is
allowable. The law allows courts to discriminate on the base of sex by
preferring a biological mother's claim to children in a divorce.
Discrimination based on sex is allowed in other areas of the law, such as
draft registration. That said, conventional marriage laws recognize the
distinction but do not discriminate in terms of providing unequal rights to
either sex.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
No but I'll take odds on reason v Josh.
Care to address the substance of my remark?
I did. Care to offer a *real* rebuttal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 07:37:26 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192B5A5.1080705@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
Equal application does not automatically imply no discrimination as
evidenced by anti-miscegenation laws. Where the law treats the genders
differently, it is discrimination whenever one gender is preferred over
the other. Sometimes that discrimination is OK. Most times it is not.
In the case of marriage as with other matters of family law, the courts have
ruled virutally without exception that distinction on the basis of sex is
allowable.
Citation?
That said, conventional marriage laws recognize the
distinction but do not discriminate in terms of providing unequal rights to
either sex.
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
No but I'll take odds on reason v Josh.
Care to address the substance of my remark?
I did. Care to offer a *real* rebuttal?
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond
the intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of
the 14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 07:46:00 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192C256.80608@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192B5A5.1080705@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
Equal application does not automatically imply no discrimination as
evidenced by anti-miscegenation laws. Where the law treats the genders
differently, it is discrimination whenever one gender is preferred over
the other. Sometimes that discrimination is OK. Most times it is not.
In the case of marriage as with other matters of family law, the courts
have ruled virutally without exception that distinction on the basis of
sex is allowable.
Citation?
I don't know the case history beyond the fact that only one decision has
upheld your interpretation of the 14th in this regard, and that was based
upon the wording of the *state* Constitution of MA.
That said, conventional marriage laws recognize the distinction but do
not discriminate in terms of providing unequal rights to either sex.
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit sex.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
Then you must have opposed Brown v. Board.
No but I'll take odds on reason v Josh.
Care to address the substance of my remark?
I did. Care to offer a *real* rebuttal?
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate integrated
schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 08:59:27 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192C256.80608@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192B5A5.1080705@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
In the case of marriage as with other matters of family law, the courts
have ruled virutally without exception that distinction on the basis of
sex is allowable.
Citation?
I don't know the case history beyond the fact that only one decision has
upheld your interpretation of the 14th in this regard, and that was based
upon the wording of the *state* Constitution of MA.
The only citation you can come up with supports my case? Thanks. And
by the way, you are wrong about that being the only case which forbids
gender discrimination in family law.
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit sex.
As stated previously, equal application does not automatically imply a
lack of discrimination. See Loving and Lawrence.
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate integrated
schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 02:59:23 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192D58F.4080002@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192C256.80608@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192B5A5.1080705@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
In the case of marriage as with other matters of family law, the courts
have ruled virutally without exception that distinction on the basis of
sex is allowable.
Citation?
I don't know the case history beyond the fact that only one decision has
upheld your interpretation of the 14th in this regard, and that was based
upon the wording of the *state* Constitution of MA.
The only citation you can come up with supports my case? Thanks. And by
the way, you are wrong about that being the only case which forbids gender
discrimination in family law.
I cited is as the exception which proves the rule. And I made no claims
that about it being "the only case which forbids gender discrimination."
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit sex.
As stated previously, equal application does not automatically imply a
lack of discrimination. See Loving and Lawrence.
Nor does it imply that gays may marry.
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 09:23:42 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<LRFkd.53325$hr3.2256956@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192D58F.4080002@gotcha.comcast.net...
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit sex.
As stated previously, equal application does not automatically imply a
lack of discrimination. See Loving and Lawrence.
Nor does it imply that gays may marry.
Correct. That remains to be seen. However, Loving and Lawrence
establish that equal application of conventional marriage to gays and
straights discriminates against gays. The unanswered question is
whether that discrimination is allowable within Equal Protection.
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
Where in this language did the authors intend integrated schools?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 09:03:25 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> writes:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41941421.7070009@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
So your response to someone asking a legitimate question is to killfile
them?
Wow. Are you so stupid as to think that you can "win" a debate this way,
or are you just unwilling to admit that your preferences are based in
hatred rather than logic and reason?
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 05:20:01 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411110723.11c5744@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<LRFkd.53325$hr3.2256956@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192D58F.4080002@gotcha.comcast.net...
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of
gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit
sex.
As stated previously, equal application does not automatically imply a
lack of discrimination. See Loving and Lawrence.
Nor does it imply that gays may marry.
Correct. That remains to be seen. However, Loving and Lawrence
establish that equal application of conventional marriage to gays and
straights discriminates against gays. The unanswered question is
whether that discrimination is allowable within Equal Protection.
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond
the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of
the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered
the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
Where in this language did the authors intend integrated schools?
Why must you ask such stupid questions (rhetoric aside)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 05:27:04 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond
the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of
the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered
the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
Where in this language did the authors intend integrated schools?
Why must you ask such stupid questions (rhetoric aside)?
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
My questions probe the consistency of your stated positions.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 06:23:13 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4193F548.8000207@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond
the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of
the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered
the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
Where in this language did the authors intend integrated schools?
Why must you ask such stupid questions (rhetoric aside)?
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't the
marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the intentions
of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either you should
state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to provide evidence
that the Constitution's authors intended integrated schools. So far you
have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand. Be an ***** on
someone else's time.
My questions probe the consistency of your stated positions.
Your question highlights your proficiency at masturbation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 06:42:07 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't the
marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the intentions
of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either you should
state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to provide evidence
that the Constitution's authors intended integrated schools. So far you
have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of
the Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then
why is it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution
in that case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 07:30:14 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion. Shove your false premises up yours ***** (and use your
boyfriend's ***** to ram it all the way, if that's what you're in to, but
forget about marrying him, cause you have no case).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 07:38:41 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against
original intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise
with marriage?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 07:51:52 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41941421.7070009@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
12 Nov 2004 12:48:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:51:52 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41941421.7070009@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
Evasion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
12 Nov 2004 08:17:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:51:52 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
Someone makes a valid argument and asks a questions of you and you
kill file them?
Geeeeze-us. I thought it was a straight-forward, simple question that
didn't even use any curse words. Why such avoidance?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
12 Nov 2004 06:25:31 PM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:pch9p0tv6vgaijfbmmjvoar0ovt51qdjfg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:51:52 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against
original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
Someone makes a valid argument and asks a questions of you and you
kill file them?
Geeeeze-us. I thought it was a straight-forward, simple question that
didn't even use any curse words. Why such avoidance?
Because it was the 3rd or 4th repetition of the same question. A question
which I answered directly and said I would not answer again. I kept to my
word, sue me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
13 Nov 2004 06:41:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:25:31 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:pch9p0tv6vgaijfbmmjvoar0ovt51qdjfg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:51:52 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against
original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
Someone makes a valid argument and asks a questions of you and you
kill file them?
Geeeeze-us. I thought it was a straight-forward, simple question that
didn't even use any curse words. Why such avoidance?
Because it was the 3rd or 4th repetition of the same question. A question
which I answered directly and said I would not answer again. I kept to my
word, sue me.
You never did answer it except to declare that there was no problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
13 Nov 2004 01:48:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:51:52 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Of course current marriage law doesn't go against the original intent of
the Constitution. I never said otherwise. But, segregated schools also
did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.
Which brings us back to: why is it OK for The Court to go against original
intent in Brown, but it is NOT OK for The Court to do likewise with
marriage?
<PLONK>
Someone makes a valid argument and asks a questions of you and you
kill file them?
Geeeeze-us. I thought it was a straight-forward, simple question that
didn't even use any curse words. Why such avoidance?
James, Seattle
The question caused panic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
12 Nov 2004 12:48:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:30:14 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion.
Because you say so.
Shove your false premises up yours ***** (and use your
boyfriend's ***** to ram it all the way, if that's what you're in to, but
forget about marrying him, cause you have no case).
Because you say so. Unfortunately you have to contradict your own
reasoning and become very upset when that is pointed out, as it is
above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 10:27:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:30:14 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:419406DF.6080301@gotcha.comcast.net...
Fester wrote:
You said what particularly bothered you about same-sex marriage wasn't
the marriages themselves, but that courts mandated it against the
intentions of the Constitution's authors. If that is true than either
you should state Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or you need to
provide evidence that the Constitution's authors intended integrated
schools. So far you have done neither.
That is absolutely stupid! I told you before that Brown was correctly
decided and that it is not analagous to the question at hand.
Do you believe Brown was consistent with the intent of the authors of the
Constitution? If so, then please provide evidence. If not, then why is
it OK to go against the intent of the authors of the Constitution in that
case, but not in the case of same-sex marriage?
This is the last fucking time I am going to inform your stupid ***** that
current laws do not go go aginst either the letter or intent of the
Constituion. Shove your false premises up yours ***** (and use your
boyfriend's ***** to ram it all the way, if that's what you're in to, but
forget about marrying him, cause you have no case).
You really are homophobe, eh?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
12 Nov 2004 12:48:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:20:01 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411110723.11c5744@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<LRFkd.53325$hr3.2256956@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4192D58F.4080002@gotcha.comcast.net...
True, conventional marriage does not discriminate on the basis of
gender
because one gender is not preferred over the other. But it does
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Inccorrect. Homosexuals may may any eligible person of the opposit
sex.
As stated previously, equal application does not automatically imply a
lack of discrimination. See Loving and Lawrence.
Nor does it imply that gays may marry.
Correct. That remains to be seen. However, Loving and Lawrence
establish that equal application of conventional marriage to gays and
straights discriminates against gays. The unanswered question is
whether that discrimination is allowable within Equal Protection.
You said courts should not extrapolate Constitutional language beyond
the
intent of it's authors. Brown v. Board extrapolated the language of
the
14th Amendment beyond the intentions of it's authors to mandate
integrated schools. Do you therefore oppose Brown v. Board?
No, because there is other language in the Constitution that rendered
the
laws struck down by Brown illegal.
And that language would be?
Article IV, Secction 2 as ammended by Ammendment 13.
Where in this language did the authors intend integrated schools?
Why must you ask such stupid questions (rhetoric aside)?
He did not know that only you were able to use that silly argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dez Akin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 10:51:38 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men and
women differently.
As there was ample precedent in Jim Crow laws for treating blacks and
whites differently.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
The 'extrapolating constitutional language beyond intent' is spurious
at best. I hardly think that the drafters of the 14th ammendment
actually implied equal treatment for blacks and whites, and certainly
not native americans and whites.
And any constitutional system is going to infringe on your right to
legislate. The role of the courts is to be agnostic of public
politics; When the courts run afoul of perceived common sensibilities,
the courts are often labled as 'activist.'
But your argument, though flawed, gives me hope of a defeat in the
courts, even if with flawed reasoning, and then we can revisit the
issue in twenty years with a more reasonable electorate.
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
Exactly which side are you arguing? That statement seems to indicate
that it would be very difficult to argue against gays right to marry
with 14th ammendment considerations.
Marriage is a contract availiable to all persons... which dogs legally
are not. A more compelling inflamitory remark would be 'Next you'll
decalre a constitutional right to marry General Electric' which have
much more of the quality of personhood.
I'm not the one who is interested in bringing new rights into existance by
fiat!
Like the right for blacks to marry whites?
Really, the assertion I was making was that if you are going to engage
in audacious hyperbole in the hopes of reducing to an absurdity, at
least it should have some basis in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 05:11:49 PM |
|
|
"Dez Akin" <dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dd43b4da.0411100851.6df8c117@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men
and
women differently.
As there was ample precedent in Jim Crow laws for treating blacks and
whites differently.
Non-starter. There are physical differences between the sexes and if the
law can't recognize that fact it is not fit to be applied to people.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
The 'extrapolating constitutional language beyond intent' is spurious
at best. I hardly think that the drafters of the 14th ammendment
actually implied equal treatment for blacks and whites, and certainly
not native americans and whites.
Of course they did. The ammendment was written following a civil war in
which people were treated as property.
And any constitutional system is going to infringe on your right to
legislate. The role of the courts is to be agnostic of public
politics; When the courts run afoul of perceived common sensibilities,
the courts are often labled as 'activist.'
No, when the courts go beyond the language and intent of the Constiution I
label them as activist. When the courts impose remedies instead of simply
striking down illegal laws I call them activist.
But your argument, though flawed, gives me hope of a defeat in the
courts, even if with flawed reasoning, and then we can revisit the
issue in twenty years with a more reasonable electorate.
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
Exactly which side are you arguing? That statement seems to indicate
that it would be very difficult to argue against gays right to marry
with 14th ammendment considerations.
Marriage is a contract availiable to all persons... which dogs legally
are not. A more compelling inflamitory remark would be 'Next you'll
decalre a constitutional right to marry General Electric' which have
much more of the quality of personhood.
I'm not the one who is interested in bringing new rights into existance
by
fiat!
Like the right for blacks to marry whites?
Really, the assertion I was making was that if you are going to engage
in audacious hyperbole in the hopes of reducing to an absurdity, at
least it should have some basis in reality.
How many times must your Loving v VA decision be shown to you to be
inapplicable to the current discussion?
<quote>
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court:
whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent
marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications
violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of
those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand
consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
</quote>
The case is not about whether marriages between persons solely on the basis
of their sex is permissable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
11 Nov 2004 04:29:01 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<Vexkd.31102$YL.2847839@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Dez Akin" <dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dd43b4da.0411100851.6df8c117@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<PZlkd.50100$Jb.1893903@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating men
and
women differently.
As there was ample precedent in Jim Crow laws for treating blacks and
whites differently.
Non-starter. There are physical differences between the sexes
That is a brilliant observation, but it has nothing to do with the
ability to enter into a marriage.
and if the
law can't recognize that fact it is not fit to be applied to people.
Perhaps, in your great wisdom, you could explain what it has to do
with a civil marriage.
More importantly, I think that the people's right to
make laws are being nifringed when courts extrapolate Constitutional
language beyond the intent of it's authors.
The 'extrapolating constitutional language beyond intent' is spurious
at best. I hardly think that the drafters of the 14th ammendment
actually implied equal treatment for blacks and whites, and certainly
not native americans and whites.
Of course they did. The ammendment was written following a civil war in
which people were treated as property.
It is not limited to the protection of minority races no matter what
the original motivation.
And any constitutional system is going to infringe on your right to
legislate. The role of the courts is to be agnostic of public
politics; When the courts run afoul of perceived common sensibilities,
the courts are often labled as 'activist.'
No, when the courts go beyond the language and intent of the Constiution. I
label them as activist. When the courts impose remedies instead of simply
striking down illegal laws I call them activist.
You can call them what you want and make as many judgements as you
wish.
But your argument, though flawed, gives me hope of a defeat in the
courts, even if with flawed reasoning, and then we can revisit the
issue in twenty years with a more reasonable electorate.
Do you understand that marriage is a contract available to all who can
consent?
Exactly which side are you arguing? That statement seems to indicate
that it would be very difficult to argue against gays right to marry
with 14th ammendment considerations.
Marriage is a contract availiable to all persons... which dogs legally
are not. A more compelling inflamitory remark would be 'Next you'll
decalre a constitutional right to marry General Electric' which have
much more of the quality of personhood.
I'm not the one who is interested in bringing new rights into existance
by
fiat!
Like the right for blacks to marry whites?
Really, the assertion I was making was that if you are going to engage
in audacious hyperbole in the hopes of reducing to an absurdity, at
least it should have some basis in reality.
How many times must your Loving v VA decision be shown to you to be
inapplicable to the current discussion?
Once would be a start. You have not done it.
<quote>
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court:
whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent
marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications
violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of
those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand
consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
</quote>
The case is not about whether marriages between persons solely on the basis
of their sex is permissable.
Nor was it about whether or not they are Black or White. It was about
equal treatment of individuals, Black, White or whatever.
thomas p.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 02:10:04 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
<snip>
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating
men and women differently. More importantly, I think that the
people's right to make laws are being nifringed when courts
extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the intent of it's authors.
<snip>
Men want to marry men and women want to marry women for exactly the same
reasons men and women want to marry.
If you argue that procreation is fundamental to this, then you automatically
exclude any marriage where one or both partner can't have or don't wish to
have children.
You are saying that *No* woman may marry after menopause.
You are saying that I can't marry because I had a vasectomy.
The people's rights to make law must have safe-guards and the constitution
is about the only way that might happen. The violence of the civil rights
movement came about because "the people" wanted to enforce their rights to
treat minorities as stray animals.
Stonewall happened because of the way people were treated by the law.
The women's movement started for the same reason.
You are defining separate but equal laws and they are never equal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marraige utterly CRUSHED |
10 Nov 2004 05:13:02 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wAukd.40464$QJ3.3409@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Fester wrote:
<snip>
But the equal protection clause is satisfied by a law which allows any
eligible man to marry any eligible woman. I don't see it as a form of
discrimination. There is ample precedent in family law for treating
men and women differently. More importantly, I think that the
people's right to make laws are being nifringed when courts
extrapolate Constitutional language beyond the intent of it's authors.
<snip>
Men want to marry men and women want to marry women for exactly the same
reasons men and women want to marry.
If you argue that procreation is fundamental to this, then you
automatically exclude any marriage where one or both partner can't have or
don't wish to have children.
You are saying that *No* woman may marry after menopause.
You are saying that I can't marry because I had a vasectomy.
The people's rights to make law must have safe-guards and the constitution
is about the only way that might happen. The violence of the civil rights
movement came about because "the people" wanted to enforce their rights to
treat minorities as stray animals.
Stonewall happened because of the way people were treated by the law.
The women's movement started for the same reason.
You are defining separate but equal laws and they are never equal.
The conventional definition of marriage, as embodied in law *does not*
create separate but equal requirements. One standard applies to all
citizens!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
