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
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 908
Prop 8Page 16 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)

BUT, my problem is with them co-opting the term "Marriage", as marriage is between a man and a woman. Words have meaning, and too many words have their meanings changed. I think that this ruling was founded on not that solid of a legal foundation.


The meaning of the word "marriage" is simply the union of two entities that don't even have to be people so that's a pretty weak complaint. Would you be okay with them adopting the word "wed" instead? And are you saying that you're cool with gays having all the legal trappings of a marriage, you just don't want the law to use that word (even though the gays will continue to refer to themselves as married)?


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.

There was no distortion in his application. THIS would be a distortion of the Constitution (though still an accurate interpretation): bigoted white folks can't screw over everybody else just because they're in the majority. Period.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 909
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 6:19:34 PM
Good grief. There are issues of substance here. Is this the best you can do Paul?

Sure, patience gets short. But the _legal_ purpose of marriage is to safeguard inheritance rights, rights to support, and the rights of next of kin to decide on medical and legal matters on behalf of family members who are incapacitated. I just don't see where the sex of the parties has anything to do with those contracts or the laws that govern them. So please tell me why I'm so stupid. But if you just tell me or imply that I'm stupid because this is how I see it and leave it at that, ... well, ... that would be just plain stupid of you.

Near as I can tell, there is no _moral_ justification for telling other consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Can you name me one that isn't based on, "because God says so?" If that's all you've got, I'm afraid that we can no longer accept that as a _legal_ justification. Actually, I don't think we ever really could because of the Establishment clause. But then, there is a lot of nonsense that people have put up with over the millenia because they thought God said to. The divine right of Kings was one of those crazy religious ideas, now, wasn't it?

Oh yeah. I know that the Bible quotes God as saying that homosexuality is an abomination. But from a legal standpoint, all I can say is this: so what?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 910
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 6:20:36 PM

There was no distortion in his application. THIS would be a distortion of the Constitution (though still an accurate interpretation): bigoted white folks can't screw over everybody else just because they're in the majority. Period.


Thanks so much for your learned exposition of constitutional law, and of Judge Walker's opinion--which I'm sure you haven't so much as glanced at. Bringing "white folks" into a discussion of a Prop. 8 case only emphasizes the depth of your analysis. I'm sure everyone will give it all the weight it deserves--I know I will.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 911
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 7:24:15 PM
Near as I can tell, there is no _moral_ justification for telling other consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Can you name me one that isn't based on, "because God says so?" If that's all you've got, I'm afraid that we can no longer accept that as a _legal_ justification.



Ed Whelan was a law clerk for for Justice Scalia and for 9th Circuit Judge Wallace; Principal Deputy Assistant A.G. in DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel--the "lawyer's lawyers" who advise various people in the Executive Branch on especially complex, difficult legal questions; and General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Other than that, he doesn't know the first thing about constitutional law.

This is a paragraph from his brief analysis of Walker's various legal findings, with Whelan's comments in brackets:



(d) There is no state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” [Depending on how broadly one defines “moral,” this proposition may be accurate. But it would be equally accurate to state, say, that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that all persons should be protected from murder.” Moral views clearly underlie all sorts of legislation (e.g., civil-rights laws, health-care reform—the list could go on forever). So it can’t really be the case that the American people generally can’t enact moral views into legislation (even as judges impose their own moral views).]


(Me speaking.) This no more violates the 14th Am. equal protection guarantee than it does for states to deny their 17-year-old citizens the right to vote, or to charge longtime homeowners lower property taxes than newcomers. It's just not something the 14th Am. was ever meant to protect people from.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 912
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 7:56:01 PM

Actually, I don't think we ever really could because of the Establishment clause.


If you mean you think the Establishment Clause prohibits state laws which enforce the majority's religious convictions, you're making a far more extreme interpretation of it than the Court ever has. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in one of its decisions it specifically rejected that. If I have time, I'll try to find the quote.
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 913
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 8:26:55 PM

"The meaning of the word "marriage" is simply the union of two entities that don't even have to be people so that's a pretty weak complaint."

Thanks for the laugh..............

If that's laughable to you then it's because you don't understand the definition of marriage. Haven't you ever heard phrases like "the marriage of beer and pizza"? The term marriage does not solely refer to the union of two people. And you didn't answer my question-- do you support the legal union of gays as long as they use the term "wed" (or "wedded")?


As far as bigoted "white folks", you can always tell when a person has nothing left to say, because they pull the racism card when it doesn't apply...

It's completely applicable because it pertains to the majority infringing on the rights of the minority, which is what the 14th amendment seeks to prevent. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm white so that interpretation would apply to me if I chose to persecute a particular group.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 914
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/5/2010 11:13:44 PM

It sounds to me like Whealen is arguing the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Am moreso than the Equal Protection clause. Walker is clearly talking about due process when Whealen makes his comment. From what I understand Walker moved this case along based on it violates the Due Process clause.


Skoochie, No, actually, this part was all about equal protection. The opinion was also based on 14th Am. due process, but the main point in that part of it was that the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a "fundamental" right.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court agreed that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right, as it had said in its two earlier "gay" decisions, Bowers v. Hardwick and Romer v. Evans. But in Lawrence, the Court seemed to keep *treating* it as one. In those cases, the Court wasn't talking about homosexual *marriage*--at least not directly. And when it's said marriage is a fundamental right, it was talking about marriage between one male and one female. Walker extended what the Court's said about the fundamental freedom to marry to include homosexual marriage.

But as it turns out, it makes no difference if same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, because that's not the question Walker's decision turns on. The reason the Prop. 8 amendment's unconstitutional, according to this decision, is that it serves *no* legitimate government purpose to treat same-sex marriage differently from conventional marriage.

That's the same (very unusual) approach the Court took in Romer in 1996, and again in Lawrence in 2003. No big surprise that Walker followed the lead--he'd studied those decisions too, and he got the hint. It's too late for me to try to explain tonight what the Court was up to when it did that, but I (and a lot of others) think it was a clever and dishonest way to cook up the result it wanted. And there's a lot of evidence that Walker isn't just rooting for same-sex marriage like several Supreme Court Justices are, but was outright biased in this decision. I'll explain in another post--right now, my dinner is calling to me.
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 915
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 7:35:03 AM

All laws need to have some reasonable basis, and "just because we say so" doesn't cut it.


Exactly, hence the Constitution. There is no law above the Constitution. I think it's funny when people who support Prop 8 say their going to take it to the Supreme Court !
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 916
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/6/2010 10:29:00 AM
Thank goodness for decent men like Bloomberg, Olson, and even Arnie that we can look at this kind of bigotry for what it is.


I'm not surprised to see people who despise America go to bat for the Islamists who are promoting this "Cordoba Initiative." Its name makes clear what spirit's behind it. The Muslims who invaded Spain more than a thousand years ago purposely built their "Great Mosque" at Cordoba right on top of the remains of a large Christian church.

Just like that mosque, this propaganda center is meant to be an insult--this time, to the United States, and to the memories of the three thousand innocent civilians murdered on 9/11 in the name of Allah. The imam who's fronting the project is heavily involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian jihadist organization founded in the 1920's that's been responsible for thousands of murders. The assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat; conspiring with the "Blind Sheik" and a terrorist cell he directed to set off a 1,200-lb. truck bomb under the Twin Towers in 1993; and the creation of Hamas are just a few of the MB's accomplishments. And Ayman Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who co-founded Al Qaeda with Bin Laden and now his second-in-command, was closely involved with the MB for years.

*That* is what's behind this. The ISNA and the IIIT, both of which are involved with this imam, are two of the front groups the Muslim Brotherhood set up here. Their purpose is to undermine this country using "dawa," a form of proselytizing for Islam--not just in a theological way, but as a complete system for living under Islamic law, or shariah. One author of a book on this effort has called dawa "stealth jihad." It's another way to wage jihad--without the murdering, but for exactly the same purpose. And that is to destroy our culture and replace it with their own.

The dawa strategy takes advantage of the tendency, which several decades of indoctrination in political correctness and multiculturalism have developed in millions of people here, to tolerate--or even fawn over--anything foreign to America's own culture. In this case, it takes the form of people falling all over themselves to make excuses for an in-your-face challenge to this country by a determined enemy. Respect their "religion," however much they loathe every other religion. And when a president refuses to speak up for the country whose interests he supposedly represents, it only encourages people here to take this lying down.

This is a land-use issue which has never had anything to do with the free exercise of religion. Cities all over the U.S. control where churches can be built, and the religion involved has nothing to do with it. You don't get to pick the site you want, even if you own the land and it's zoned for a church. The city has to permit the church as a "conditional use," and just as with other conditional land uses, it has discretion to decide if it's appropriate on that site. Does anyone really believe that if this thing were built, the city couldn't prevent someone from building a liquor store or a strip club next door to it?
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 917
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 11:06:49 AM

that are now being tried to be overturned because the left doesn't like them.

Why do Americans constantly use that phrase, left wing this or ring wing that.

This Prop 8 goes against the Constitution as opposed to left wing right wing.
You have legal positivism which is Prop 8. The we have natural law...the Constitution, although that can be debated by some as made by humans as well but more or less leaning towards natural law! ;)

Prop 8 is about control, like abortion. It's discrimination.
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 918
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 11:08:32 AM
They can take it to the Supreme Court. The chances of it being reinstated are somewhat nil! Ludicrous!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 919
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 11:11:01 AM
^^^^^It's so much easier to find one biased, gay judge who will call it your way, than to try to build political support for a law. Kind of like the Mafia getting to one referee, so the game will turn on his call and the bets will pay off their way. But gee, how else is a fascist minority supposed to force its will on the majority?

This is a lot like what happened in Colorado in the 1990's, when rich, influential gays who disliked the Coors brewery's employment policies started getting cities to pass laws that gave them special protections. When the state's voters passed an initiative (with a 70+% vote) to prevent Colorado cities from substituting their own laws for the state's--in general--these people took their suit against this law all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. Gays still have their cheerleading section on the Court, and its members don't much care about the Constitution. The only question is, will there be four of them, or five?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 920
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 11:18:04 AM
This Prop 8 goes against the Constitution as opposed to left wing right wing.
You have legal positivism which is Prop 8. The we have natural law...the Constitution


I'm sure no one questions your deep understanding of the philosophy embodied in the U.S. Constitution. But "Legal positivism?" "Natural law?" What are you talking about?


Prop 8 is about control, like abortion. It's discrimination.


Yes, oddly enough, laws are "about control." And they impose the will of the majority, usually through legislators that majority has elected to represent it. A lot of laws penalize anyone who does a particular thing. They also discriminate, by penalizing only the people who violate them, and not others.

After considering all this unfairness and arbitrariness, I've come to the conclusion that we should just abolish all laws. We should all be free to do whatever just feels right to each of us. Let our natural instinct to do good things be our guide.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 921
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 1:50:04 PM
^^^^^Always instructive to read such expert analysis of the Court, and of constitutional law.
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 922
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 7:35:01 PM
[qoute] "Legal positivism?" "Natural law?" What are you talking about?

Okaaaay!

The Supreme Court is going to quash this Prop 8! Period! It's unconstitutional.
End of discussion! Americans can go on and on about left wing and right wing until the ****ing cows come home ! You can cite any case brief you want to but when it comes to the Supreme Court which bases it's decisions on 'natural law' the Constitution' ( that's what I'm talking about, holy shit) Prop 8 is unconstitutional. period!
But thanks for coming out!
:D
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 923
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/6/2010 7:40:02 PM
But then again does Western ideology play a role in natural law? If this Prop 8 passes though the Supreme court Western ideology has ****ed everyone once again!



 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 924
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 12:21:50 AM

Looks like under the recent case law it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage in California.


Well, if so, Judge Walker didn't explain why, or what case. There may be political reasons for what they did. The only case law on this that counts are the Supreme Court's two decisions--Romer v. Evans, from 1996? and Lawrence v. Texas, from 2003. It's not clear what the Court would decide on this, but if Justice Kennedy followed the same "reasoning" as in Lawrence, it would approve it.

I have no animosity against gays. But I believe this easy habit of just making the Constitution say whatever judges want it to is very, very bad. Dangerous for our freedoms and for this country, even. And I don't care who wins what in the short term--it's not nearly worth the cost. I hate tyranny--and that's what disregard of the law leads to. What we're beginning to see is exactly what the Founders were concerned about, and what the brilliant men who framed the Constitution designed it to discourage. But the Constitution can't keep us free, if most of us feel free to ignore it.

I would speak out just as strongly against this if the conservatives on the Court were distorting the Constitution to make things come out in ways I personally approved of. But that doesn't happen, because *they* aren't the ones doing the distorting. If this keeps up--and Mr. Obama chose Elena Kagan because he knows she'll be his rubber stamp--I only hope it leads to a constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court's power. One way would be to allow any decision it made to be overruled by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 925
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 9:22:58 AM

In CA banning gay marriage IS constitutional as per the states constitution.

But the US Constitution doesn't permit states to create laws that infringe on someone's rights: "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."


It really is true that the only way they can effect change is through the court system, the will of the people be DAMNED.

The above quote from the US Constitution applies here as well. We don't live in a nation where majority rules-- someone has to look out for the minority to ensure equality. If you do believe that majority should rule, consider this: in some areas (such as Los Angeles), whites are outnumbered by other races. So how would you feel if the other groups decided to join forces and vote away some of the white man's rights? Maybe take away your right to marry. Would you expect that decision to be adhered to just because the majority voted for it?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 926
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 10:01:41 AM

If the supreme court starts overturning provisions in state constitutions


Read Romer v. Evans--you'd love it.

I wonder if the Court will ever overturn the ones in several state constitutions that ban polygamy henceforth and forever. Congress required them to include that as a condition of entering the Union. What would the supreme court of any of those states do, if it had to allow same-sex marriage, and a polygamist then claimed the right to marry?

It's a conundrum Judge Bork raised, and he couldn't see any principled way for a court to distinguish between same-sex marriage and other forms of non-traditional marriage. I don't either. If you allow the one, you have to allow the others, too. Then what--secession?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 927
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 10:04:35 AM

funny how close the acronym "SCOTUS " is to "scrotum".
just sayin'....


Yes--and its new addition brings it that much closer.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 928
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 12:04:24 PM
One of the most laughable things about many of the supporters of homosexual marriage--and there are many-- is their irrationality. They don't know the first thing about the constitutional questions involved, so they either shout incoherent bumper- sticker slogans or parrot some leftist dross they got off a free website. They do the very same thing with abortion--"woman's right to choose," "her own body," "haters who want to take us back to the days of quacks using coat hangers," and similar drivel. The theme's always the same: This is a private, personal matter, and the majority has no right to force its moral views on gays, women, and (fill in the blanks with your favorite victim groups or causes.)

Give us a G.D. break. These very often are the same people who loudly support this president's efforts to create a national government that invades and controls much of our personal lives. That's the exact opposite of what the Constitution they claim to love so much--when they think it cuts their way--is all about, but what do they care? About as much as the typical Taliban savage cares about a great work of art.

This crowd thinks it's fine to tell us what sort of toilets and shower heads we must have, how much energy we may use--e.g. by requiring certain building materials in our houses, allowing only certain types of light bulbs, and mandating cars which only use so much fuel--to dictate that we must buy certain specified health insurance, to limit us only to certain officially approved household products, and so on.

It can't be too long before this national government is telling us (for our own good, of course) how much we can weigh. And after that, maybe, what clothes we can wear, or what foods we can eat, or what kind of toilet paper we all have to use? (Any subversives the government inspectors catch with that stuff that has Mr. Obama's face on each sheet will be sent to a re-education camp to correct their views.) All these little invasions of privacy are made gradually, of course, so as not to raise too much uproar.

"I know better how you should live than you do, and I have a right to tell you just what you can do and say. But don't *you* dare try to say any state can keep gays from marrying each other, people from smoking dope wherever they want, women from getting abortions whenever they please, or anything else we may happen to think is sacrosanct. That's an invasion of privacy, and it's unconstitutional!"

In a nutshell, that's what the control-freak elitists in this country are about--and almost always, they support this president and consider themselves "liberals." Most of us conservatives consider them anything but liberal, in the true sense of the word. At best, they're meddling little busybodies, and at worst, selfish, intolerant brownshirts who are asking to get smacked down.
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 929
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 2:37:59 PM

Intellectual dishonesty is so rampant by the leftists. The 14th amendment pertained to SLAVERY issues NOT every damn issue that comes down the pike. If you really want to know the intent of the 14th amendment the are records that make it clear.

Uh, yes it was about every "damn issue that comes down the pike." If it was just about slavery, it would have been written that way.

The ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. Maybe we should take a group vote and decide if white men over 50 should be allowed to contribute to these forums.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 930
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 3:22:40 PM

the one thing the right has taught the left is to "keep it simple".


Simpletons don't need anyone to teach them to keep things simple. They do that naturally.


What do you care? Or do you want government to control who we can and can't marry?


What I care about is biased judges who feel free to rewrite the Constitution every time some group they like is involved. I don't much care who marries whom--but I support the right of the people of a state to regulate public morality as they see fit. All our criminal laws are ultimately based in religious and moral convictions, and some of them are based in little or nothing else.

The majority in all fifty states has made laws which deny the rapist his freedom to rape, the arsonist his freedom to burn buildings, and the thief his freedom to steal. They may even deny shopkeepers the freedom to open for business on Sundays, or anyone the freedom to appear nude in most public places, or to buy alcohol at certain times or in certain places--or even altogether. So what? I'm not a bluenose, but I defend the bluenoses' right to be, if they're the majority in a state. Those who don't like it can suck it up, or find another state to live in. And that's just what people have traditionally done in this country.

If the majority in one state wants to make public intoxication illegal, and the majority in another state couldn't care less if its streets are full of people swigging from whiskey bottles and falling down drunk, that's for them to decide. The 14th Amendment just does not guarantee a right to be drunk in public, any more than it guarantees a right to run red lights. Try claiming that the state vehicle law which makes you wait a minute or two at those signals violates the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee by unfairly depriving you of your freedom.

I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination, anything in the 14th Amendment was ever meant to guarantee homosexuals a right to marry each other, so that no state could infringe that right. I also don't believe--and I doubt if most lawyers who understand constitutional law, do, either--that anything in the 14th Amendment was ever meant to guarantee anyone a right to abortion, which no state could infringe.

Of course, none of that means a thing to someone who's willing to make the 14th Amendment mean anything they please. But the minute you do that, you're no longer following the rule of law. Instead, you're just submitting to arbitrary rule--in other words, tyranny. Some of us don't want to live that way, whatever quick and easy victory it allows whatever minority grievance group to achieve. I hope there are conservative gays who oppose this decision for the same reasons, on principle.

I've studied all the Supreme Court decisions involved in both these issues--the most important ones pretty carefully. Their legal reasoning is either non-existent or God-awful. Roe, for example, is a joke among lawyers--more than one critic has observed that it contains no legal reasoning whatsoever. If experts were picking the ten all-time worst Supreme Court decisions, Roe would be a strong contender--right down there with Dred Scott and Korematsu, the Japanese internment case.

It's so pathetic that the clerks for Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote it as a rookie on the Court, used to jokingly call it "Harry's Abortion." The Court overruled several parts of Roe in 1992 in Casey, but it didn't have the political courage to overrule it altogether. The only result, if it had, would have been to leave it to each state either to allow abortion on demand, or to restrict it in some way. Before Roe, about 85% of the states authorized abortions under at least some conditions--only a few prohibited them outright.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Court someday uphold Judge Walker's irrational and biased ruling. (And his bias is flagrant, as he showed by his actions at every stage of this appeal.) That's what happens when elitist judges substitute their personal views for what the Constitution says. They know the history of the 14th Am., and they know very well that "the equal protection of the laws" referred to state laws that discriminated against blacks. There's no logical justification for extending it to all sorts of other identifiable minorities, except for other racial minorities. But it's hardly a surprise that Walker decided this on the same ground Justice Kennedy used in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court's third and most recent "gay" decision. He was serving it up for the Court on a silver platter, betting that Kennedy won't reverse himself.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 931
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 3:43:54 PM

The ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. Maybe we should take a group vote and decide if white men over 50 should be allowed to contribute to these forums.


What's wrong--getting too boggled? Could it be that you're unsure of your position, and so you want to restrict the discussion to people who can't back up what they say any better than you can? Your reliance on personal insults and inability to back up your claims are dead giveaways, and most of the people here have seen them before and know what they mean. All heat, and no light. Please keep it up, though--it's sort of fun to watch you discredit yourself.

But before you go too far, and self-immolate, I *do* hope you'll explain that 14th Amendment to me. I can tell you've really studied its history in detail, and I just can't seem to figure it out. Did George Jefferson, or whatever that old white guy's name was who wrote it, really say it was about every issue that comes down the turnpike?
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 932
Prop 8
Posted: 8/7/2010 11:10:04 PM

Apparently those who are for hating feel they are entitled and view themselves as being better than others.


Sounds like you are projecting.
Anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a racist, or now, a “hater” . But liberals are tolerant and loving of all. If that were true you would not be insulting others here merely because their opinions differ from yours. Some of the conservative arguments are brilliant. You could learn from them if you were not so keen on merely rallying for the cause.

I thought gays should be permitted to marry. Most of the people of California did not. There is something fundamentally wrong when a Judge can state that the voice of the people does not count. Why bother voting then? Or putting issues up for voting? The Federal Courts overruled the voice of the people in California and Arizona before when the people in both these states overwhelmingly voted to deny benefits to persons in the U.S. illegally. Now California is bankrupt and Arizona is on the verge of it.




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.

There was no distortion in his application. THIS would be a distortion of the Constitution (though still an accurate interpretation): bigoted white folks can't screw over everybody else just because they're in the majority. Period.


It is not ‘period’ because you say so. Matchlight is an attorney and brilliant in his understanding of the Constitution and accordingly political issues.
Once again, no valid rebuttal just the same accusations. Yawn….. BTW here in California “white folks” are not in the majority. Persons against homosexual or lesbian marriages are decent, good people for the most part. Or are all the pros good and the nays evil?


And in case you haven't noticed, I'm white so that interpretation would apply to me if I chose to persecute a particular group.

Yes, we noticed; we also noticed you weren’t referring to yourself when you inferred he and anyone else who voted against prop 8 is a bigot.


In a nutshell, that's what the control-freak elitists in this country are about--and almost always, they support this president and consider themselves "liberals." Most of us conservatives consider them anything but liberal, in the true sense of the word. At best, they're meddling little busybodies, and at worst, selfish, intolerant brownshirts who are asking to get smacked down.

+1


I'm not surprised to see people who despise America go to bat for the Islamists who are promoting this "Cordoba Initiative." Its name makes clear what spirit's behind it. The Muslims who invaded Spain more than a thousand years ago purposely built their "Great Mosque" at Cordoba right on top of the remains of a large Christian church.

Just like that mosque, this propaganda center is meant to be an insult--this time, to the United States, and to the memories of the three thousand innocent civilians murdered on 9/11 in the name of Allah. The imam who's fronting the project is heavily involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian jihadist organization founded in the 1920's that's been responsible for thousands of murders. The assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat; conspiring with the "Blind Sheik" and a terrorist cell he directed to set off a 1,200-lb. truck bomb under the Twin Towers in 1993; and the creation of Hamas are just a few of the MB's accomplishments. And Ayman Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who co-founded Al Qaeda with Bin Laden and now his second-in-command, was closely involved with the MB for years.

*That* is what's behind this. The ISNA and the IIIT, both of which are involved with this imam, are two of the front groups the Muslim Brotherhood set up here. Their purpose is to undermine this country using "dawa," a form of proselytizing for Islam--not just in a theological way, but as a complete system for living under Islamic law, or shariah. One author of a book on this effort has called dawa "stealth jihad." It's another way to wage jihad--without the murdering, but for exactly the same purpose. And that is to destroy our culture and replace it with their own.

The dawa strategy takes advantage of the tendency, which several decades of indoctrination in political correctness and multiculturalism have developed in millions of people here, to tolerate--or even fawn over--anything foreign to America's own culture. In this case, it takes the form of people falling all over themselves to make excuses for an in-your-face challenge to this country by a determined enemy. Respect their "religion," however much they loathe every other religion. And when a president refuses to speak up for the country whose interests he supposedly represents, it only encourages people here to take this lying down.

This is a land-use issue which has never had anything to do with the free exercise of religion. Cities all over the U.S. control where churches can be built, and the religion involved has nothing to do with it. You don't get to pick the site you want, even if you own the land and it's zoned for a church. The city has to permit the church as a "conditional use," and just as with other conditional land uses, it has discretion to decide if it's appropriate on that site. Does anyone really believe that if this thing were built, the city couldn't prevent someone from building a liquor store or a strip club next door to it?


matchlight, thanks for pointing this out. As soon as we see them at the strip club we’ll know to watch for another jihad attack on America.

Check out the Ground Zero Mega Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's oped piece at the subversive Huffington Post (Puff Ho


Sharing the core of our beliefs by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (March 2009)

In the Muslim world, when someone has a grievance and says, "There ought to be a law!" they know that there is one. All the law that a Muslim needs is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Just after 9/11, people would ask me, why do so many movements with political agendas take a religious name? Why are they called the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hizbullah, which means Party of God, or Hamas, which is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement? I tell them that the Muslim approach to law and justice begins with religious language because secular movements have failed to deliver what Muslims want – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If that sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence, that's because – contrary to what many people in the West believe – Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Creator endowed man with these unalienable rights. The framers of the constitution wrote that they were establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquillity, promoting general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

In the same way, Islamic law believes that God has ordained political justice, economic justice and help for the weak and impoverished. These are very Islamic concepts. Many Muslims believe that what Americans receive from their government is in fact the very substance of what an Islamic state should provide.


Rauf attempts to liken our Constitution to Islamic law. Subversive propaganda. And we are buying it. Well, get used to Burkas ladies because it is coming.

Rauf after 9/11, “The United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened, because we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA!”

The majority of the money for this mosque will allegedly come from the Saudis and the Ford Foundation. They plan to inaugurate the new center on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Mayor Bloomberg is a spineless wimp. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned his nose up at an offer of millions from a Saudi Prince after 9/11. This would not be happening if he was still Mayor of NYC.

Anyone opposed to this mosque, according to Rauf ,is…….all liberals say in unison……..a bigot (sic). Sigh ……
Show ALL Forums  > California  >