Submitted by Mysandrist Fool on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 07:59.
Well done!!!!
Like I said. This isn't about government. Those who say it is use it out of convenience and hatred, then change their mind when government uses similar activities for OTHER issues. It's good to see the protests out there.
Submitted by Lynn4Peace on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 08:34.
Prop 8 has enraged me beyond words. It really has. I cannot even participate in a discussion about it without becoming irrational because I vehemently oppose allowing the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. That violates the notion on equality...and it violates one of the fundamental principple of democracy.
The whole notion of this "vote" is vile.
What's next? Voiting on if should allow certain people to work? Ski? Ride the fucking bus? Have children? Smoke? BREATHE? lol
Absolutly dispicable.
Prop 8 has enraged me beyond words. It really has. I cannot even participate in a discussion about it without becoming irrational because I vehemently oppose allowing the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. That violates the notion on equality...and it violates one of the fundamental principple of democracy.
The whole notion of this "vote" is vile.
What's next? Voiting on if should allow certain people to work? Ski? Ride the fucking bus? Have children? Smoke? BREATHE? lol
Absolutly dispicable.
I honestly did not believe this would pass, for fuck's sake it was California. But on the plus side I see this as finally catapulting it to the National level, the only way for this to finally be settled is for it to go to the SCOTUS. OH and I've got to disagree with you on "fundamental principple of democracy", it actually goes directly with the fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy as Jefferson pointed out is nothing but mob rule where 51% of the people step on the rights of the 49%. This is why our country is a Republic and is governed by the most brilliant document conceived, the U.S. Constitution. The laws laid down restrict government from assuming control to piss on the Minority of our great Republic.
Submitted by Boanerges on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 18:40.
Lynn4Peace wrote:
Prop 8 has enraged me beyond words. It really has. I cannot even participate in a discussion about it without becoming irrational because I vehemently oppose allowing the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. That violates the notion on equality...and it violates one of the fundamental principple of democracy.
The whole notion of this "vote" is vile.
What's next? Voiting on if should allow certain people to work? Ski? Ride the fucking bus? Have children? Smoke? BREATHE? lol
Absolutly dispicable.
I agree with Pagan on the democracy statement.
The government already determines who can smoke, what they can smoke and where. I guess those laws violate equal protections also
Submitted by Boanerges on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 18:51.
Keith's diatribe is well, dramatic.
Isn't basing whether a person can love another person solely on a government program that will take away their freedom kind of shallow?
Keith's diatribe is well, dramatic.
Isn't basing whether a person can love another person solely on a government program that will take away their freedom kind of shallow?
How so? What would happen if they took marriage away from blacks and from interracial marriage?
People can and should love each other regardless of whether the government puts their blessing on it.
Just not receive the special benefits, privileges and legal immunities that come with the license.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Submitted by Boanerges on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 04:54.
Pagan wrote:
Boanerges wrote:
People can and should love each other regardless of whether the government puts their blessing on it.
Just not receive the special benefits, privileges and legal immunities that come with the license.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Okay, I get it all people are citizens regardless of sexual preference.
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
If section is not applicable in this instance because marriage is a state issue. This clause only applies when a state law attempts to trump a federal law. Since the only federal law (that I am aware of) concerning marriage is DOMA, Prop 8 doesn't remove any privileges or immunities that are guaranteed on a federal level.
Quote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
No one is denied anything that another person in California can obtain. Just like people can smoke but not smoke pot. If they are going to allow government to acknowledge marriage government will set the rules determining it.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Okay, I get it all people are citizens regardless of sexual preference.
Thank you
Boanerges wrote:
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
If section is not applicable in this instance because marriage is a state issue. This clause only applies when a state law attempts to trump a federal law. Since the only federal law (that I am aware of) concerning marriage is DOMA, Prop 8 doesn't remove any privileges or immunities that are guaranteed on a federal level.
Notice "No State"? What do you call SS survivor benefits, or immunities like someone testifying against their Spouse? Besides nowhere does it specify only "Federal Law". Also if you stick to your logic States could make laws denying the right to vote, marriage, work, etc. etc. based on race. Kinda like the 60's segregationists, are you a segregationist Boan?
Boanerges wrote:
Quote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
No one is denied anything that another person in California can obtain. Just like people can smoke but not smoke pot. If they are going to allow government to acknowledge marriage government will set the rules determining it.
They're being denied a Marriage license Boan, I'd call that being denied something wouldn't you? Also read response above
Submitted by Boanerges on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 22:42.
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Quote:
Besides nowhere does it specify only "Federal Law".
Yes, it does. The passage is about what a STATE can't do in relation to a "citizen of the United States" (or laws from the federal government) Google it dude and read up on it. On this part you are unquestionably incorrect. Since the Federal Government doesn't "marry" people (that is people don't get a marriage license from the feds) there is not breach here. They (the feds) provide a benefit based on the couple providing a "marriage license". The terms of that license is determined by the states. This clause can't be invoked unless a "Privilege or Benefit" already exists and a state is trying to take that away. Not the case here.
Quote:
Also if you stick to your logic States could make laws denying the right to vote, marriage, work, etc. etc. based on race.
No they can't either. #1 the right to vote is a federal guarantee so the privileges or immunities clause would apply. #2 There is no way to make a law based on race that doesn't result in a group not being included in the law. Go back to the group of Californians. How many can marry a person of the opposite sex? (they all raise their hands) How many can marry a person of the same sex? (no one raises their hand) How many can marry more than one person? (No one raises their hand) All of the above are applied equally. (**by marriage here I mean it as "government acknowledgment of marriage" mf.**)
Any racial laws passed would however go like this. Let's take a law that says whites can't marry anyone but whites. (the loving case) How many people can marry colored people? (Everyone except white people raises their hands - not equally applied) How many people can marry white people? (only whites raise their hands - not equally applied)
There is a huge difference in race and sexual orientation. Race in an immutable trait. That is, it's obvious and unchangeable (well except the gloved one ) and no one can choose it. Sexual orientation is an action that may or may not exist and everyone can choose to participate or not.
One more note on interracial marriage of the past. In most (maybe all I don't know) cases it was ACTUALLY ILLEGAL for interracial couples to marry. They would be jailed for being married if it was found out. This is not the case for modern day same sex couples.
Quote:
Kinda like the 60's segregationists, are you a segregationist Boan?
Don't call names, it makes you seem desperate. You're better than that.
Pagan wrote:
They're being denied a Marriage license Boan, I'd call that being denied something wouldn't you? Also read response above
Lots of people are denied licenses for lots of reasons. That doesn't mean the law isn't applied equally.
Submitted by Boanerges on Sat, 11/15/2008 - 07:27.
Mysandrist Fool wrote:
All this from a guy who wants gub'mint out of our lives. You sir, are a hypocrite.
How's that for a name?
Stupid actually. Since I have said all along that the only solution to this problem is for government to get out of our marriages altogether.
And Prop 8 keeps government OUT of peoples lives, not put government into people's lives.
The whole premise that what is going on is legal is intended to show what we get when we allow government into our lives.
They will tell us who we can marry, when we can marry them and most importantly when we can decide not to be married. It's "legal".
Stupid actually. Since I have said all along that the only solution to this problem is for government to get out of our marriages altogether.
And Prop 8 keeps government OUT of peoples lives, not put government into people's lives.
The whole premise that what is going on is legal is intended to show what we get when we allow government into our lives.
They will tell us who we can marry, when we can marry them and most importantly when we can decide not to be married. It's "legal".
It does? So Government defining a marriage "keeps government out"? Fuck me running Dude
Boan I'm not calling you names, I'm pointing out that you are in fact using the same arguments the segregationists used. And Boan I would say that you are much better than that.
Submitted by Boanerges on Sat, 11/15/2008 - 10:03.
And I am telling you that it's a different situation and according to the rules set forth by the government, it's "legal".
It's no more illegal for the government to refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage as it is to deny someone to marry an animal, a bar stool, or relative.
And I am telling you that it's a different situation and according to the rules set forth by the government, it's "legal".
It's no more illegal for the government to refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage as it is to deny someone to marry an animal, a bar stool, or relative.
There you go again with that totally ridiculous bullshit again. Let me School you once again
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
Submitted by Boanerges on Sat, 11/15/2008 - 18:16.
Not really....
You have determined that government benefits shouldn't be applied based on the fact you believe their relationship to be "ridiculous".
How is that different than denying it based on sex?
Here is a question for you.
Are single people that are couples but choose not to marry because they do not believe in it rights violated because they do not receive the same benefits as married people?
Submitted by Boanerges on Sun, 11/16/2008 - 14:29.
The relevance is that most people have no problems with GOVCO telling a person they can't marry animals, or inanimate objects.
Or multiple partners
or close relatives.
That is legal and not contested
But yet the same people will claim it's illegal to limit same sex marriage.
It's not the law that a person can't marry their sister is the same as a law denying same sex marriage. It's equally applied to the populace and therefore satisfies the equal protection clause.
The relevance is that most people have no problems with GOVCO telling a person they can't marry animals, or inanimate objects.
Or multiple partners
or close relatives.
That is legal and not contested
But yet the same people will claim it's illegal to limit same sex marriage.
It's not the law that a person can't marry their sister is the same as a law denying same sex marriage. It's equally applied to the populace and therefore satisfies the equal protection clause.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Well done!!!!
Like I said. This isn't about government. Those who say it is use it out of convenience and hatred, then change their mind when government uses similar activities for OTHER issues. It's good to see the protests out there.
Now, that is REAL government.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Prop 8 has enraged me beyond words. It really has. I cannot even participate in a discussion about it without becoming irrational because I vehemently oppose allowing the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. That violates the notion on equality...and it violates one of the fundamental principple of democracy.
The whole notion of this "vote" is vile.
What's next? Voiting on if should allow certain people to work? Ski? Ride the fucking bus? Have children? Smoke? BREATHE? lol
Absolutly dispicable.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
It's good to see ya back, girl! You might want to keep away from Boan's irrational blog, however if you don't want your blood to boil.....
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
I honestly did not believe this would pass, for fuck's sake it was California. But on the plus side I see this as finally catapulting it to the National level, the only way for this to finally be settled is for it to go to the SCOTUS. OH and I've got to disagree with you on "fundamental principple of democracy", it actually goes directly with the fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy as Jefferson pointed out is nothing but mob rule where 51% of the people step on the rights of the 49%. This is why our country is a Republic and is governed by the most brilliant document conceived, the U.S. Constitution. The laws laid down restrict government from assuming control to piss on the Minority of our great Republic.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
I agree with Pagan on the democracy statement.
The government already determines who can smoke, what they can smoke and where. I guess those laws violate equal protections also
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Keith's diatribe is well, dramatic.
Isn't basing whether a person can love another person solely on a government program that will take away their freedom kind of shallow?
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
How so? What would happen if they took marriage away from blacks and from interracial marriage?
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
People can and should love each other regardless of whether the government puts their blessing on it.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Just not receive the special benefits, privileges and legal immunities that come with the license.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Okay, I get it all people are citizens regardless of sexual preference.
If section is not applicable in this instance because marriage is a state issue. This clause only applies when a state law attempts to trump a federal law. Since the only federal law (that I am aware of) concerning marriage is DOMA, Prop 8 doesn't remove any privileges or immunities that are guaranteed on a federal level.
No one is denied anything that another person in California can obtain. Just like people can smoke but not smoke pot. If they are going to allow government to acknowledge marriage government will set the rules determining it.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Thank you
Notice "No State"? What do you call SS survivor benefits, or immunities like someone testifying against their Spouse? Besides nowhere does it specify only "Federal Law". Also if you stick to your logic States could make laws denying the right to vote, marriage, work, etc. etc. based on race. Kinda like the 60's segregationists, are you a segregationist Boan?
They're being denied a Marriage license Boan, I'd call that being denied something wouldn't you? Also read response above
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Yes, it does.
The passage is about what a STATE can't do in relation to a "citizen of the United States" (or laws from the federal government) Google it dude and read up on it. On this part you are unquestionably incorrect. Since the Federal Government doesn't "marry" people (that is people don't get a marriage license from the feds) there is not breach here. They (the feds) provide a benefit based on the couple providing a "marriage license". The terms of that license is determined by the states. This clause can't be invoked unless a "Privilege or Benefit" already exists and a state is trying to take that away. Not the case here.
No they can't either.
#1 the right to vote is a federal guarantee so the privileges or immunities clause would apply.
#2 There is no way to make a law based on race that doesn't result in a group not being included in the law.
Go back to the group of Californians.
How many can marry a person of the opposite sex? (they all raise their hands)
How many can marry a person of the same sex? (no one raises their hand)
How many can marry more than one person? (No one raises their hand)
All of the above are applied equally.
(**by marriage here I mean it as "government acknowledgment of marriage" mf.**)
Any racial laws passed would however go like this.
Let's take a law that says whites can't marry anyone but whites. (the loving case)
How many people can marry colored people? (Everyone except white people raises their hands - not equally applied)
How many people can marry white people? (only whites raise their hands - not equally applied)
There is a huge difference in race and sexual orientation.
) and no one can choose it.
Race in an immutable trait. That is, it's obvious and unchangeable (well except the gloved one
Sexual orientation is an action that may or may not exist and everyone can choose to participate or not.
One more note on interracial marriage of the past. In most (maybe all I don't know) cases it was ACTUALLY ILLEGAL for interracial couples to marry. They would be jailed for being married if it was found out. This is not the case for modern day same sex couples.
Don't call names, it makes you seem desperate. You're better than that.
Lots of people are denied licenses for lots of reasons. That doesn't mean the law isn't applied equally.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
All this from a guy who wants gub'mint out of our lives. You sir, are a hypocrite.
How's that for a name?
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Stupid actually. Since I have said all along that the only solution to this problem is for government to get out of our marriages altogether.
And Prop 8 keeps government OUT of peoples lives, not put government into people's lives.
The whole premise that what is going on is legal is intended to show what we get when we allow government into our lives.
They will tell us who we can marry, when we can marry them and most importantly when we can decide not to be married. It's "legal".
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
It does? So Government defining a marriage "keeps government out"? Fuck me running Dude
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
And you are all for it.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Boan I'm not calling you names, I'm pointing out that you are in fact using the same arguments the segregationists used. And Boan I would say that you are much better than that.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
And I am telling you that it's a different situation and according to the rules set forth by the government, it's "legal".
It's no more illegal for the government to refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage as it is to deny someone to marry an animal, a bar stool, or relative.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
There you go again with that totally ridiculous bullshit again. Let me School you once again
Jesus you're thick!
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
So tell me why that doesn't apply to people wanting to marry animals or barstools.
Individual rights correct?
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
You're being totally fucking ridiculous and it's not even worth commenting on further
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Not really....
You have determined that government benefits shouldn't be applied based on the fact you believe their relationship to be "ridiculous".
How is that different than denying it based on sex?
Here is a question for you.
Are single people that are couples but choose not to marry because they do not believe in it rights violated because they do not receive the same benefits as married people?
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
I wont reply to this in the off chance that I give it some sort of validity.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
CAN YOU SITE ONE INSTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL MARRYING A BARSTOOL??
GOAT??
PIG???
HORSE????
Please, Make this relevant.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
The relevance is that most people have no problems with GOVCO telling a person they can't marry animals, or inanimate objects.
Or multiple partners
or close relatives.
That is legal and not contested
But yet the same people will claim it's illegal to limit same sex marriage.
It's not the law that a person can't marry their sister is the same as a law denying same sex marriage. It's equally applied to the populace and therefore satisfies the equal protection clause.
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
Re: Keith's Comments on Prop 8
When? Where? Did I miss something?