Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 862
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)Page 15 of 52    (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)
No characteristic is specifically protected in the 14th Amendment. For equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court has defined "suspect categories" and "fundamental" rights. Unless a law differentiates on the basis of membership in a suspect category, or infringes a fundamental right, the Court will apply the rational basis standard in reviewing an equal protection challenge to it.

Putting aside the question of how the California court might review the law in your example under the state constitution, there are two ways to analyze it under federal equal protection doctrine. Here's the first. Height isn't a suspect category, so rational basis review would apply. But any such law wouldn't even survive that. There's no rational basis for a height restriction, nor would it achieve any legitimate government purpose. So, a height restriction on marriage would violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee.


so, please help me understand how it would be within the realm of the constitution to stop gays from marrying but not to stop people of short stature from marrying..? Are you saying there is a rational basis for a sexual orientation restriction or would a sexual orientation restriction serve a government purpose?

I don't believe I ever stated that all citizens are to be treated equally, only that they are entitled to *equal protection* under the law. I believe that is the wording of the state constitution:



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use
of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.

US Constitution 14th amendment 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.


 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 863
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/17/2008 8:01:07 PM
^heck, you're right, Jack -- people making $35K per year should be barred from marrying! There would be a governmental advantage to that... somehow ... right...?




 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 864
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/17/2008 9:56:58 PM
The problem for the courts is to say just what "equal protection of the laws" means in any particular case. The same's true of almost everything in the Constitution.

I don't believe the new section 7.5 mentions sexual orientation. Doesn't it just define "marriage" in terms of one man and one woman? To repeat, being a conservative, I don't consider gay marriage a proper concern of government. So my interest in this whole thing is academic--it raises legal issues that interest me. I wouldn't want to make the case for the new amendment--I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawyers far more skilled than me to defend it. But you may want to consider the difference between saying that a group doesn't have a certain right, and just defining the right in a way that leaves them out.

One example (blame the drink I had earlier) comes to mind. I once read about an ambitious prostitute who started a "church." The purpose, as I remember, was either to conceal her illegal business, get tax benefits--or maybe both. She claimed that the sex acts her "congregation" performed were simply the church's religious ceremonies. Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits a church from making sex acts its religious ceremony. And yet courts have not defined "free exercise" of religion to extend First Amendment protection to a "church" which does.
 Buffalonian
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 865
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/17/2008 10:37:08 PM
The Americans with Disabilities Act (better known by its acronym of ADA) does provide protections against discrimination against the disabled (or, as Matchlessm words it, "give[s] people in these groups more protection against discrimination" -- and the enemies of gays' civil rights, Blacks' civil rights, Latinos' civil rights, women's rights etc. also have that act in their crosshairs, too.

In addition to the recognition of rights of gay people, another product of the overall victory of civil rights movement is the ADA, although the particular law was passed about 22 years after the main victories of the civil rights movement. No matter what their political stripe, the professors who teach Special Ed credential classes (including those which I had taken at Cal State Northridge, Cal State L.A., Cal State Dominguez Hills, UC Riverside, etc.) all include this basic fact when outlining the history of IDEA (educational law) and other changes which stopped students and others with disabilities from being segregated and treated as isolated / pariahs.

"Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban" is a recognition by those groups (as well as by unions, who were almost all against Proposition 8) that the forces behind Proposition 8 have undercutting of gay rights (including marital rights) as a wedge and precedent to be used to undermine the rights of ALL.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 867
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/17/2008 11:07:17 PM
Matchless,


I don't believe the new section 7.5 mentions sexual orientation. Doesn't it just define "marriage" in terms of one man and one woman? To repeat, being a conservative, I don't consider gay marriage a proper concern of government. So my interest in this whole thing is academic--it raises legal issues that interest me. I wouldn't want to make the case for the new amendment--I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawyers far more skilled than me to defend it. But you may want to consider the difference between saying that a group doesn't have a certain right, and just defining the right in a way that leaves them out.


I might be on board if that were originally written into the constitution OR if there were a compelling reason to write a definition that specifically leaves a group out of a classification that has legal advantages (a point you have made); however, no one has yet to bring up ANY legal reason for such an exclusion.

Since marriage comes with a set of rights AND since the supreme court of California has found that same sex couples cannot reasonably be denied those rights (it did NOT give anyone any rights, only protected rights that were there all along), how is it that you feel an amendment not only denying those rights BUT ALSO taking away the rights of the over 17,000 same sex couples who have already LEGALLY married should not be subject to being found unconstitutional?
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 868
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/18/2008 12:27:25 AM
Of course the court may find it unconstitutional. And then a campaign may begin to remove the judges who oppose the amendment. I expect that in the end, the Supreme Court will have to decide this issue. Since 30 of the 50 states now have laws that exclude same-sex marriage, I have no idea what the Court would do. It may also decide whether a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, is constitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Under the DOMA, no state has to recognize a marriage performed in any other state, except marriages between one man and one woman.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 869
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:37:26 AM

Under the DOMA, no state has to recognize a marriage performed in any other state, except marriages between one man and one woman.


How sad and stupid is that?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 870
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/18/2008 4:33:40 PM


Under the DOMA, no state has to recognize a marriage performed in any other state, except marriages between one man and one woman.


Only until it is tested in the Supreme Court.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 871
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:56:48 PM
Matchless,
You seem to be saying that there is not "absolute justice" and that the "will of the people," if it is voted into law (or constitutional amendment) should be enforced as the law of the land regardless of any other consideration?

If that is wrong, could you please tell me to what standard you believe new laws should be held and who should be responsible for holding them there (if anyone)?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 873
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 11/19/2008 12:48:59 PM

One example (blame the drink I had earlier) comes to mind. I once read about an ambitious prostitute who started a "church." The purpose, as I remember, was either to conceal her illegal business, get tax benefits--or maybe both. She claimed that the sex acts her "congregation" performed were simply the church's religious ceremonies. Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits a church from making sex acts its religious ceremony. And yet courts have not defined "free exercise" of religion to extend First Amendment protection to a "church" which does.


I guess it would depend on whether or not the "ceremonies" would be performed even without a donation. LOL!!!! I wonder what other "good works" they performed. It kind of gives a whole new meaning to "missionary position."

Love it, M!
 prof48
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 875
Standards of Morality
Posted: 12/13/2008 3:46:36 PM

Sorry Willis, I've never been hurt by anyone who has cheated on a test.

I can only conclude then that you were one of the ones cheating on tests. Even there you ultimately were hurting yourself. Those who are credentialed without honest credentials hurt those they claim to serve. They prevent credentialling of those who actually were better but did not make the cut off because cheaters surpassed them on the curve. They encourage a climate of dishonesty which means that drugs are approved without honest testing, bridges are authorized that fail because they were not honestly tested. Even if you personally did not die or were not injured it does result in higher costs which come out of your taxes. But then perhaps you are not hurt there because you cheat on your taxes too?
 Sirens Call
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 879
Prop 8
Posted: 12/13/2008 6:52:35 PM
Impresaria:
I was raised in a family of gays, and I do not condone either the lifestyle or the environment it creates for the children. In fact I hated it.

My brothers and I were under pressure to become gay, because our parents felt that they would be such good parents to a gay child.


Impresaria on another thread:


I will absolutely reveal myself. I would prefer you rejected me before you met me....and, I am looking for the few men who will read my profile and say "YES!! FINALLY!!"


If you are truly interested in weeding out the men who would not be sympathetic to your case, then I would suggest that you disclose your beliefs right on your profile. This is a powerful issue, and there are a lot of men who would not agree with you. That doesn't make you right or wrong about your beliefs, but why waste their time either?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 882
Prop 8
Posted: 12/13/2008 9:30:10 PM

As to the novel of happy children of gays in the post above, might I refer you to the NAMBLA website which will give testimonials by children who allegedly appreciated being molested?


There is a difference between being homosexual and being a pedophile. Some pedophiles like children of their same gender, just as some like children of the opposite. And some like both. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of pedophiles publicly identify as heterosexual because the more normal they seem, the less chance they have of getting caught.

If NAMBLA people want to use their alleged homosexuality as a cover for their pederasty, that is lying. So is using the existence of liars like them to besmirch the characters of the vast majority of homosexuals who have no desire to harm children.

To equate homosexuality with pederasty is to engage in falsehood. There is nothing Christian, godly, or righteous about slander.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 891
Prop 8
Posted: 12/14/2008 11:03:47 AM

Ace, So at what age do you think that a boy should be able to "choose" to get in bed with a man at?
[Did you seriously look at the NAMBLA site for even two seconds? It openly shows that these are grown men looking for young boys "of any age" (to quote their site exactly on age requirements!) to have sex with!]


I've been aware of NAMBLA for years, and frankly loathe what they're about. But they are hardly representative of the vast majority of homosexual women and men who respect the rights of children. The legal consensus is that a boy of 18 has had enough time to discover for himself what his sexuality is about. Why can't other so-called adults wait until then and honor the choices he makes as an adult?

Impresaria, I don't doubt that there is a clientelle of chicken hawks, but that's true of heterosexuals as well. And I don't question your experience, as sexual addiction is progressive. But again, a willingness to violate the rights of others is wrong, whether it derives from sexual perversion or a belief in the superiority of one's own religion.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 896
Prop 8
Posted: 12/15/2008 10:48:33 AM
Well, it seems we're back to the conflict between what religious authorities tell us and what the scientific evidence supports. Do I really have to rehash the debate between Copernicus and the Pope and which of them had a better hold on the truth where the structure of the solar system was concerned? Do I really have to remind people about which of them it was who expressed a willingness to use torture to get the answer he believed was most expedient? Do I really have to remind us of how foolish it would be to trust religioius authorities when it comes to matters of law as the means of protecting our human rights?

The science so far indicates that humans are not strictly "homosexual" or "heterosexual," but exist along a continuum of innate preferences from exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual with varying degrees of preference for one gender or ther other in between. The vast majority of people are mostly heterosexual with some degree of attraction to members of the same sex. This is from the Kinsey report back in the '40s or '50s. I'm sure that Wikepedia has an article about it.

Wiring for sexual attraction is complicated, and there is at present no way to tell where along that continuum an individual's innate wiring actually is--let alone whether it is fixed or can be altered through social conditioning. However, so many of our instinctive behaviors can be trained that I wouldn't be shocked to find that someone who is innately bisexual could have himself convinced for many years that he was exclusively homosexual, only to later discover that he can and does enjoy being with women and comes to beieve that he was "truly" and exclusively heterosexual all along.

Did his switch for men to women mean he "converted?" Not necessarily. It could well have meant that he had bought one story about himself that was innacurate, and switched to another innacurate story. --kind-of like a pedophile who claims to be gay and actually believes it. This is especially likely when faced with intense scrutiny and powerful rewards for "recanting." I was once a fundamentalist Christian myself, and I undertand the huge, incessant, and subtle peer pressure. If you've ever read _Perelandra_ by C.S. Lewis, you will understand the insidious and clever forms that such pressure can take.

Again, it comes down to harm and the violation of a person's rights. Adults preying on children is wrong, whether it is gay men "recruiting" boys or straight men "seducing" girls, or women going after children for their own gratification.

However, the issue of pederasty has _nothing_ to do with gay marriage. Recognizing that gay sexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality might bring on feelings of disgust, but if you have ever watched a childbirth that you weren't personally involved in you'd have to say that it is disturbing to say the least. Should we ban it bbecause some people find it distasteful?

Ah, I see the next objection coming, and there is some truth to it. Just because something is natural doesn't mean we cannot have some decorum around it. Eating is natural, but we minimize the risk of food-borne diseases and contamination with hygenic customs. We do the same thing with potty training. And we do the same, for the most part, with heterosexual sex. What is the institution that heterosexuals in our society use to ensure that our sex drives don't destroy us or our families?

By excluding gays from the institution you undermine the stability of our culture. How quickly would HIV had spread if the expectation for gays was that they form stable marriages and work at them just like everyone else?

This isn't about "sanitizing the image" of gays and lesbians. It is about cutting through all the slander to get at the truth of their basic humanity. Impresaria, you have witnessed some very sick behaviors and I have no doubt that the people you describe exist. But I can assure you that people of similar sickness exist in about the same proportion among heterosexuals. Should we keep everyone from marrying because of them?

No one can honestly say that homosexuals are perfect. What we can say is that when people are looking for evidence to back conclusions they already hold, they will sieze upon almost any evidence and accept it without critical review because it "feels right." This natural tendency among people is also scientifically demonstrated.

And that is why the people who claim to agree with us are perhaps more dangerous to our good judgment than those who disagree. We don't hesitate to criticize the basis for arguments that challenge us. But we don't bother to examine those arguments that appear to support our positions. That is also natural behavior--naturally wrong, and naturally unfair. In the extreme, it produces and perpetuates bigotry. We are all sucseptible to it, and we all must fight that tendency in ourselves if we hope to maintain our freedom. It is also necessary if we are to maintain the state of grace that we hope to claim as our gift from God. Isn't that what "repentence" is? Isn't a belief that would put our righteous judgement ahead of our human compassion a hardness of heart that Christ and the Apostles warned us against?

The eternal vigilance we must exercise is not just about foriegn influences and corrupt polititicians, it is about the tendrils of corruption within ourselves. And one of those tendrils is our natural tendency to lapse into just the sort of bigotry that takes the worst possible sample and genralizes it to an entire population.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 898
Prop 8
Posted: 8/4/2010 5:27:15 PM

Because Capernicus was right, that _proves_ that all scientists before or after him are always right too. That sorta knocks the whole footing right out from under the whole rest of the rant.


Been away for a while, but I can't believe you could make such a silly rejoinder. The scientific _method_ has proven itself to be a reliable means of assessing the truth with respect to statements of fact. Religious faith has not.

If you want to trust your ass to a bridge built on a wing and a prayer, be my guest. For myself, I'll go with the one built by a licensed engineer. Just sayin'
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 899
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/4/2010 6:16:33 PM
The judge decided this on the basis of both due process and equal protection--that is, under the 14th Amendment. That's absurd. The purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, was to prevent any state from denying basic civil rights to the country's several million newly freed blacks. It overruled part of the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision by making clear that "all persons born or naturalized in" the U.S.--including blacks--are not only U.S. citizens, but also citizens of the state they reside in.

This judge had a problem. He had to distort the U.S. Constitution to fit the result he personally favors, while making his sleight-of-hand sound passably legal--and he did. But this is an arbitrary, lawless decision. And just as with the recent arbitrary, lawless decision on Arizona SB 1070--also by one lone judge--the higher courts may well ignore the Constitution themselves and play along. John Locke, the English philosopher whose writings very strongly influenced the design of our system of government--whose survival is now threatened--saw the danger of arbitrary rule: "Where the law ends, tyranny begins."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 900
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/4/2010 7:30:42 PM
^^^^^Skoochie, Who am I to argue with your interpretation of 14th Amendment Equal Protection? But I'm not so sure about that "all shall be given equality" part. If I tried to marry a woman while I was still married to another one, I might get cursed at or slapped, or worse. And I'd probably be spending my nights on someone's couch. But once my pride (and my wounds) had healed, do you think I could get some nice judge to give me some of that equality, so I could go ahead and tie a second knot with my new squeeze?

If marriage is a good thing, I'd argue, then it's only natural that two marriages at once are *twice* as good. And I'd close by saying that discriminating against me this way is a violation of my civil rights--it's as bad (I'd tell the court, my voice rising) as what they used to do to blacks! Personally, I think this bigotry against bigamy has gone on far too long already.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 901
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/4/2010 11:40:52 PM
^^^^^^Maybe you just didn't like them apples. What's wrong with my comparison? I can't see what distinguishes one kind of non-traditional marriage from another, if this is about the parties involved getting the equal protection of the laws. If states have to recognize homosexual marriages by law, why shouldn't they also have to recognize multiple marriages? (I'll leave the inter-species stuff out of this--I can just see trying to decipher whether a particular bark, oink, or bleat meant "I do.")

This decision will open up a very big can of worms if the Supreme Court (with "Rubber Stamp" Kagan) eventually upholds it, because there will no longer be any valid reason for laws against bigamy or polygamy. Considering that several states had to ban polygamy forever in their constitutions as a condition of being admitted to the Union, it would be just a little awkward to make it legal nationwide. That's a conflict Judge Bork discussed, and he didn't see how the Court could get around it. But what does *he* know about constitutional law, anyway?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 902
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 12:03:46 PM
[quote It's like comparing a shop lifter to a guy who doesn't return the wallet he found.

Maybe--although I suspect the main reason no state ever felt a need to make homosexual marriage a crime, rather than just refuse to recognize it as legal, is that--just as with incestuous marriage--the issue almost never came up.

On the other hand, lots of people have tried to engage in some sort of multiple marriage. It wasn't always easy to get a divorce. And many polygamists weren't too concerned about getting all those marriage certificates. Also, records aren't always perfect or easy to verify, and they can be falsified. So it's not surprising that people who opposed multiple marriages felt they needed to go further and make them crimes. And it was a statement of the majority's disapproval on moral grounds--just like making shoplifting a crime.

I'm still reading Judge Walker's 135-page opinion, but the legal reasoning (only 20-plus pages of the total) is weak. Not only that, but he finds things to be "facts" which are really just claims or opinions. For example, he says the “evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” It's "beyond any doubt" that the sun rises every day--but what he's claiming is certainly open to *some* question. And he states as a fact that “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.” "August 5, 2010 is a Thursday" is a fact. But statements like this are only claims, and Judge Walker can't make them facts just by calling them that.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 903
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 12:42:22 PM
If there was never any need to interpret the Constitution for an evolving society, we wouldn't have much use for the SCOTUS.


I think I'll call my bank and say circumstances have evolved, so I want to reinterpret the terms of my mortgage. And while I'm at it, maybe I'll tell the dentist I want to reinterpret the fee I pay him for checkups.

You couldn't have the role of the Court more wrong. What you're calling for it to do is really just to destroy the Constitution, little by little. When the law is no more than what judges want to say it is, we don't *have* law any longer, but just tyranny. The people who get prejudiced judges to hand them social benefits they can't get through the political process may achieve short-term gains. But they achieve them only at the cost of endangering the freedom of all of us--including their own.

You might want to read up on the purpose of the Supreme Court. It was never meant to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, except in a few limited circumstances. And it wasn't until the late 1950's that the Court ever dared to claim that power for itself. None of the three branches of the U.S. government has any right to just decide on its own what powers it has--at least not in a free country. And none of them has any powers beyond those the American people have chosen to give it. That's what's meant by "government by the people."

Please keep up the standard leftist practice of trying to discredit people who disagree with you by calling them "haters," etc. Falling back on personal attacks instead of refuting an argument on the facts is a great way to show everyone how weak your own argument must be. I've already learned, for example, from Ms. Sherrod and others, that the only reason anyone could oppose Mr. Obama's policies is that they're racists.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 904
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 12:51:19 PM

(Some Texas case) on Sodomy


That's Lawrence v. Texas, from 2003, and Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. That's why a lot of lawyers who have watched these things wouldn't be surprised to see him uphold what Walker just decided, when it gets to the Supreme Court. And Ms. Kagan will make a sure fifth vote for it, unless Kennedy changes his position in the meantime. It's interesting that Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence, said the decision paved the way for legalizing homosexual marriage.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 905
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 3:57:17 PM

The SCOTUS has had the ultimate authority in legal matters since the country was founded.


I don't know what your authority for that is, but it's just not true. I'll be glad to take the time to prove it, if anyone wants.


The Constitution is still in tact even after it forced States to recognize interracial marriages.


I just knew Loving v. Virginia would come up sooner or later. It's a perennial favorite of people who favor making homosexual marriage a constitutional right, because the Court reaffirmed in it that marriage is a "fundamental freedom" and a "basic civil right."

But there's one little problem--Loving was about a Virginia law which made it a crime for whites to marry nonwhites. That meant this law fell right within the 14th Amendment, because it was the very kind of state race discrimination the 14th Am.'s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws was intended to prevent. And none of the purposes the law was supposed to serve could justify making a person's act a crime purely because of their race.

Neither the men who wrote the 14th Am. nor the people of the states which ratified it in 1868 ever intended it to give homosexuals a right to marry each other. Since the 1950's, the Equal Protection Clause has become the favorite tool of people who cooperate with activist judges willing to misread the Constitution--deliberately--to extend non-existent rights to their pet social grievance groups.

And they invariably try to portray them as just like blacks in the civil rights era. You can almost see the local cops with their beer guts and chaws, turning their dogs and fire hoses on the peaceful, saintly protesters marching in the street, who show their pluck by responding with an off-key chorus of "We Shall Overcome." Meanwhile, of course, hate-filled, self-righteous local rednecks with axe handles and crowbars roar around in old pickups with the radio blaring out country songs, looking for more homos to beat up. "Serves 'em right," one of the local mouthbreathers tells a TV reporter covering the mayhem. "Gawd hates queers." Everybody knows that's jest how us Amuricans are.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 906
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 4:08:06 PM

Yep, let's switch to a theocracy.


You will be switching to one soon enough, foolish American. But there will be only one God then, and He will not be like the one most of you worship now. And we will laugh, indeed, thinking back to the time we spat on your 9/11 dead with our Cordoba Project--almost on top of the hole where your great temple to arrogance stood until that great morning--and made you like it! Woe unto your fornicators and homosexuals then, when, as it is written, the Only God will use us, his servants, to mete out his wrath on these wicked ones for turning their faces from him!
Show ALL Forums  > California  >