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
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 972
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)Page 50 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)

Mr Obama told the Marines: “Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved.


Boy, coming from him, I'll bet that really meant a lot to the Marines. Probably the only thing that would have pleased them as much would be a visit by that sexy Janet Napolitano.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 973
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 7:15:46 AM
As retired Army that served in these wars anything out of Obama's mouth is hollow as he showed me everything he was about, when he became the first President ever not to attend the Military Inaugural Ball. He hates the military and I have seen first hand what his idealism has done to some of my friends that still serve.

Don't shoot peace award that he made Patraeus come up with what a joke.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 974
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 8:58:26 AM
Last night, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed Judge Walker's order striking down Prop. 8 from taking effect. The court wants to look at it first--and if it pays even the least attention to the law, it won't like what it sees.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 975
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 9:09:02 AM
Match your confidence in the law serving as a firewall to tyranny strikes me as naive given the Obama healthcare deal. If a government can essentially take over entire industries, dictate what individual citizens MUST do, why should one feel safe from courts telling other citizens what they CAN do?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 976
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 10:43:48 AM
^^^^^^^GC, I think you misunderstand me on that. The courts may overrule Walker, or not, and the same with the ruling on SB 1070, with the health care law, etc. We just can't count on that to save the day, because the judges may be sold out, too. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 1956 Kevin McCarthy version is one of my all-time favorite movies)--everyone looks the same, but it's hard to know who's been taken over by your enemy.

That's why the surest way to prevent these would-be tyrants from destroying the Constitution and this country is to pull the plug on them. Use our votes to get them out of office, so they can't get their grubby paws on the controls and steer us all into a wreck. And if this president loses control of Congress, he'll have to consider that he could be impeached, if he goes too far.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 977
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 11:57:57 AM
^^^^^ Any American who can't bother to vote in this election can't care much about this country. If we don't whack this thing hard enough in November to slow it down, at least, we may never get another shot. It seems to me we owe the memories of the million men who died in wars to protect the United States more respect, than just to sit and watch it be ruined.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 978
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 12:58:21 PM
paul-

Ya got the wrong right-wing nut in this case. I've never been to a gun show nor solicited for voters.

I agree with your argument why voting solicitations are unproductive at such events although I'm not entirely certain there is also an anonymity desire at work.

I'm not as sanguine about the power of voting anymore. People who make the country work are often too busy living and working to study the issues. The left has a permanent class of dependents that will dependently find the D at least on election day and if that fails they have the birth certificates of the dead if not their leader.
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 979
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 2:03:27 AM

I am curious if you have ever spoken with anybody in a mosque on their stance on Prop. 8. I am sure you would find them very tolerant, loving, compassionate and open to the idea of maryying two muslim men................................... Please let us all know when you have had that conversation.

I keep telling you that you should be a comedian.

Paul K


+1, that’s funee and true.

In our society, which is, for the most part, accepting of gays, some are too uncomfortable with themselves to openly admit their homosexuality. I can’t say I blame them; it really is no one’s business if one wishes to not disclose their sexuality.

No muslim is tolerant of gays; if they say they are they are lying. They are reluctant to admit their prejudices publicly for fear of being labeled bigots.

In Iraq and other Islamic countries homosexually is punishable by death.

http://www.thelocal.se/21544/20090818

Until the 70s homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the psychiatric community. Some of that stigma remains.

Not all conservatives are against gay marriages.

I know gay males, couples and singles, that have adopted children considered by most straight couples as un-adoptable. I really respect them for the sacrifices they have made in caring for older or ill children.



As retired Army that served in these wars anything out of Obama's mouth is hollow as he showed me everything he was about, when he became the first President ever not to attend the Military Inaugural Ball. He hates the military and I have seen first hand what his idealism has done to some of my friends that still serve. ~fzrhusker~


Frankly, I do not think Obama is good enough to be at this ball

I appreciate and respect your service in our armed forces.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 980
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 5:52:06 AM
The Islamic homophobia is ironic since there is so much of the culture and religion that is homosexual. I'm always struck by the 30 guys living together thing in bachelor, monastic, jihad loving, women as evil, death cult seclusion. And if you spend any time in Muslim countries apparently straight guys are always sneaking off together over the sand dunes to God knows what ends.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 981
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 8:20:29 AM
Jack I think it's difficult for those of us who did not buy into the revolution of the 60's to understand the fulfillment of a lifelong dream Obama with a Dem congress represents. Most of us old enough to be semi-adults in the 60's recall the Age of Aquarias, the dream of making a new world, etc. About 1/2 of us grew up, the other 1/2 feel this hope and change stuff is the fulfillment of a long held belief system, giving meaning to otherwise empty lives.

Facebook has allowed me to be put in contact with 100's of my 60's friends from U of Wisconsin days. Many never left the intellectual mindset of this time. They are in many cases angry, poor, disappointed, scared, etc. in what they view of a society and country that didn't do what they wanted, and now is globalized, poorer, less full of promise, and unlikely to care for them.

Think of them as Skooch grown old but not up lol. They, like many others, never look in the mirror. They fail to see california went from #1 in education to #48 all the while doing exactly what the left wanted. Same with business.

It would take a big person to admit they are the problem. I read the facebook postings and they are all sure Madoff was a Bushie, Enron failed America rather than seeing Enron was a creature of California politicians not capitalism, and all form of irrational, ill thought out venting of a world they have scarce ability to understand with their intellectual paradigm. Some are now retired prof's from the UW campus they never left, it is clear the pond fed them a daily diet of wrong headed cliches. They use their intellectual horsepower to spin elaborate rationalizations about leftist failures much like Stalinists of 50 years ago.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 982
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 10:23:18 AM

Impeachment?.... NO... Voting the guy out?... YES


JD, I agree with you that impeaching Mr. Obama wouldn't be a good move. Too much risk of making people sympathize with him. But I think that if Republicans control of the House--and especially if they also control the Senate--it wouldn't hurt to mention the possibility of impeachment now and then, to make him think twice about acting like a dictator. Executive orders will be hard to stop any other way, because it takes a 2/3 majority of both Houses.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 983
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 10:32:46 AM

They use their intellectual horsepower to spin elaborate rationalizations about leftist failures much like Stalinists of 50 years ago.


I really think that with some people those beliefs are a substitute for ordinary religion. So they keep defending them, no matter how strong the evidence against them is. Sort of like the Rastas, who worship the Emperor of Ethiopia as a living god, refusing to believe he died years ago.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 984
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 8:02:09 PM
There are companies that have a commercial business unit, and a separate defense contractor unit. They operate very, very differently even when making the same product (e;g, airplanes). The pricing and costing rules in defense require stringent oversite, and management of change orders (always).

Generally the defense contractors act like extensions of the government, customer could be NASA, AF, navy, NSA, etc. The tremendous oversite reflects the great fear of the company, thus the government entity, being accused of fraud. It is very, very expensive to be preoccupied with fraud.

The commercial side of the house will not be preoccupied with fraud, thus far less expensive than a similar government contract. the emphasis is on efficiency and the fraud portion is left to the annual audit. catches any farud, much more efficient...what can i say?

Sometimes people talk about a $200 hammer, or a $600 toilet seat as if I should share their outrage. I usually ask, "how come the hammer is so cheap?". You could not take an order in a defense contractor for $1,000, even for a hammer. The paperwork (vendor spec's and traceability) and overhead supporting the hammer has to cost far more than $200. Selling hammers is a money loser. I'll bet they wish they could get out of the business.

My years in serving customers that are government, DoD, publically regulated, and pure commercial business has colored my attitude. The closer to politics and politicians, the more FU. The more unions are involved, the more the certainty rises things will be double FU. If the client has both political and unions involved, the less serious I take the client and more likely I just assume a confederacy of dunces will be there and take to adjusting my attitude to the inevitable moron-a-thon that will be visited on me and my superior intellect.

The point? Arguing about defense contractors being a "business" is like saying the city bus company is a business.
 JackRaiden
Joined: 1/24/2010
Msg: 985
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 12:01:38 AM
Personally, I don't understand how people who are against gay marriage can say "it hurts the sanctity of marriage!" They never explain this though. What people need to understand is just because gay people are allowed to marry, that doesn't mean straight people are suddenly NOT allowed to marry or have children.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 986
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 2:30:48 AM
^^^^^I don't care if the majority of people in a state are for or against homosexual marriage. The important thing is that they be allowed to have their votes count. If the people of state X want to pass a law to make dogs wear pants, that's their business. As long as it doesn't violate anything in the Constitution or any federal law, it doesn't matter how stupid anyone thinks it is. I defend the right of narrow-minded people to be narrow-minded.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 987
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 6:24:41 PM
^^^^^^^Don't forget the Ninth Amendment, which is the strangest and hardest to understand of all of them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 988
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 10:29:21 PM
This is from Justice Scalia's dissent in a case about a state law which authorized courts to let third parties visit children even against their parents' wishes:

In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage."

The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.

Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.



The majority in this case held the state law unconstitutional for violating "substantive due process." That's the doctrine the Court invented to overrule state laws it felt violated some fundamental right to liberty (or sometimes property) protected by the 14th Am. Roe was a SDP decision. So was Dred Scott, in 1857.

The Court used this doctrine so often from 1904 to 1937--almost always to overrule economic regulations-- that this came to be called its Substantive Due Process Era. After denouncing it for a couple decades as something it used to do in the bad old days, the Court started using SDP again in the '60's. But this time it didn't involved economic restrictions, but restrictions on things like contraception and abortion.

Scalia was saying here, in effect, "SDP's an excuse for us to decide what *we* think is fair, and too bad what the people of the state who passed the law think. That's abusing our power as judges, and I reject it. I believe parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. But it's a right people had *before* the Constitution, and we have no authority to claim it's a fundamental liberty the 14th Amendment protects."

Judge Walker used a similar fundamental rights approach in striking down Prop. 8. Just as in Roe and a lot of other SDP decisions, it's a great excuse for judges to overreach their authority and use the 14th Am. to second-guess the people and the states.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 989
Prop 8
Posted: 8/20/2010 6:05:39 AM
Unthinking I suspect it has more to do with semantics, the valuing of words. Should you revisit your Orwell you would find the blurring and changing the definition of words was a cornerstone of thedeep totalitarianism. e.g. war = peace, love = neglect, etc.

Recently the group that wanted it to be a law to lie about one's military records was defeated in court. The court saying "lying about military honors was not protected". What were those propoponents of protecting military honors doing, were they bigots?. They wanted words and honors and the sanctity of something special through the ages.

The left is always moving the language around. progressives 100 years ago stole the clearly honorable term "liberal" and renamed themselves, turning it into something foul and dishonorable to those liberals who beleived in capitalism and freedom of man from the state.

See I know with your big brain you will never have to ask about this again:)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 990
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/20/2010 8:05:00 AM
It may be true that some people oppose homosexual marriage because they have homosexual tendencies. Just as it may be true that Judge Vaughn Walker is strongly biased in favor of it because he's a practicing homosexual himself.

But that's an awfully convenient way to brush aside the fact many millions of Americans who do not have those tendencies object to homosexual marriage on moral grounds. And many object to it because they see it as what it is--one more attempt by a self-anointed ruling class to force its radical notions on everyone else by subverting the Constitution.

This is another battle in the culture war this elite has been waging to undermine and destroy this country's traditions and values--and ultimately, the country itself. They love to cast themselves as champions of the oppressed, but they're the ones who want to coerce all those Americans they see as less enlightened and cosmopolitan.
 Rabbitman49
Joined: 10/20/2005
Msg: 991
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 12:05:52 PM
Re: #1271 et. al. -
Just as it may be true that Judge Vaughn Walker is strongly biased in favor of it because he's a practicing homosexual himself.

That right there is proof that the Supreme Court didn't care about the law. Had they done so, they should have remanded all the way back to the District Court to have a judge who didn't have a conflict of interest hear the case.

In fact, we've had other decisions from this Court which are clearly erroneous. The DNA ruling violates the "plain sight" exception to the Fourth Amendment*, and the use of silence against a suspect/defendant vs. his Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination, where even the Miranda (v. Arizona) Warning calls it a "right to remain silent." Silence is no longer silence: The currently seated Supreme Court is out of its mind.


* - I also disagree with this on the grounds that it allows "fishing expeditions without probable cause" when DNA is compared against a general database for identifying additional crimes for which the person was not even a suspect. It's one thing to compare DNA (pursuant to a warrant) against a specific sample for which the person is a suspect, but J. Scalia's dissent is the correct legal conclusion.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 992
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 3:38:49 PM
"The Supreme Court, with Justices who were mostly appointed by Republicans, disagree with you guys. Prop 8 has been defeated once and for all."

Skooch - You are talking from the wrong orifice, if you catch my drift. The Supreme Court did not say anything about Prop 8 being defeated.
If anything, they kicked the can down the road, in a weak sisterly fashion, to be argued and voted and sued and kicked around some more, for any state that chooses to be involved.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 993
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 8:02:16 PM
California first authorized the initiative about a hundred years ago, in 1911. Today, it's one of twenty-six states that have it. It was one of the progressives' reforms, like "sunshine acts," meant to give the people a direct say in lawmaking, by giving them a way to bypass their elected legislators and their dealmaking in smoke-filled rooms.

What the majority did in Hollingsworth goes far beyond same-sex marriage. In order to avoid having to decide the merits of Prop. 8, Chief Justice Roberts decided the issue on procedural grounds by ruling that the proponents of the proposition lacked standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling against it in federal court. Roberts' decision tears a giant hole in the initiative process, and the damage extends all over the country.

In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court had warned about this. It noted that “if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged . . . this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State’s governmental structure.”

The California court added that “in light of the frequency with which initiatives’ opponents resort to litigation” (more than one-third of the initiatives approved in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington between 1900 and 2008 were challenged in court) “the impact of that veto could be substantial.”

Two can play at this game. Conservative Republican governors--and there are quite a few of them--will now be able to use the very same tactics to nullify initiatives that liberals have voted into law. They can refuse to defend or enforce an initiative like that, let its opponents find a sympathetic federal judge who will invalidate it, and when the initiative's liberal proponents try to appeal the ruling against it in federal court, they may not have the standing needed to do it. If and when that starts happening, we will see if the people who are so pleased with Hollingsworth are still smiling.

I saw a solution suggested that makes some sense. It was for this or another state's voters to design a mechanism that would allow the proponents of initiatives to defend them in court when elected officials refused to. The voters would then propose this mechanism as an initiative itself. The person who suggested this thought that if an initiative like this passed, elected officials would be very leery about trying to block it. I agree.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 994
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 11:13:22 PM
Skooch - You're right, there's nothing I can do about a Supreme Court decision, or non-decision.
I did shift some funds into Johnson & Johnson, the makers of K-Y products. Seems like a solid "forward-thinking" kind of investment, don't you agree?
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 995
Prop 8
Posted: 6/28/2013 4:31:42 PM
Another view :
"JP Morgan's man in the White House: Barack Obama's legacy of ashes
19.06.2013"
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists
"At one time, it seems decades ago now, the general thinking in the USA was that President Barack Obama would jolt the American political system into actually doing something beneficial for its citizens rather than spying on them, building F-35 aircraft, upgrading nuclear weapons, spending trillions of dollars (US) on national security, cutting unemployment benefits/food stamps, fomenting war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia; and dragging out the war in Afghanistan.

It is a damn shame!! Why? Why?

Sadly, Barack Obama's legacy will be one of ashes. The destruction of America's social fabric; the implementation of a surveillance corporate-state; assassination and negation of Habeas; and a perpetual state of emergency/war economy will come to dominate the historical narrative on the Obama presidency. President Obama will also go down in US history as the American President who paved the way for the financial industry to dismantle Social Security. With the Executive Powers he has accrued and newly created, future American President's will, by fiat, be able to sell off national park lands and other US assets, even the nation's artwork: citizens of Detroit, Michigan and Greece, Eurozone, are undergoing the pillaging now (see below Greece Memo, Detroit Creditors)."
excerpted-
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 996
Prop 8
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:10:00 PM
Skooch - My apologies are in order. I posted my message on the wrong thread.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >