Prop 8 Overturned

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



BackFire
California's ban on same sex marriage was overturned today.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1

Good, I say.

Symmetric Chaos
The comments on the article are terrifying.

Lucius
Horrifying and embarrassing.

Peach
Never, ever read the comments on news articles. That's a lesson I learned a long time ago on various snark communities I'm a part of.

However, good. About damn time that got overturned.

§P0oONY
This topic doesn't effect, interest or bother me. hmm

King Kandy
Thank... well, not God. Thanks, Judge!

WanderingDroid
I'm neither happy nor sad for this..... as of matter of fact I'm sick of hearing it. But I will note something that does bother me.

What's the point of voting when a certain interest group will take things to court and find a judge that is sympathetic to their cause?

Same with Arizona.

Voting is irrelevant...welcome to modern liberalism.

Now that a certain interest group can take things to court and get a sympathetic judge....then by all reason birthers can now take Obama to court and demand proof of his birth certificate. And other shit....

Prop 8 go away please...our state is bankrupt and personally that should have priority #1.

That is all.

King Kandy
Originally posted by WanderingDroid
I'm neither happy nor sad for this..... as of matter of fact I'm sick of hearing it. But I will note something that does bother me.

What's the point of voting when a certain interest group will take things to court and find a judge that is sympathetic to their cause?

Same with Arizona.

Voting is irrelevant...welcome to modern liberalism.

Now that a certain interest group can take things to court and get a sympathetic judge....then by all reason birthers can now take Obama to court and demand proof of his birth certificate. And other shit....

Prop 8 go away please...our state is bankrupt and personally that should have priority #1.

That is all.
Not really. If everyone voted that black people should be slaves, then courts should have ever right make them retract, because that's against the constitution. That's pretty much the point of having non-criminal courts.

WanderingDroid
Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really...

Yes, really...

King Kandy
If you feel that any legislation passed should be able to stand without court intervention, why should we even have a supreme court in the first place?

§P0oONY
Originally posted by WanderingDroid
I'm neither happy nor sad for this..... as of matter of fact I'm sick of hearing it. But I will note something that does bother me.

What's the point of voting when a certain interest group will take things to court and find a judge that is sympathetic to their cause?

Same with Arizona.

Voting is irrelevant...welcome to modern liberalism.

Now that a certain interest group can take things to court and get a sympathetic judge....then by all reason birthers can now take Obama to court and demand proof of his birth certificate. And other shit....

Prop 8 go away please...our state is bankrupt and personally that should have priority #1.

That is all. I have to say that I agree with this post.

WanderingDroid

King Kandy
I could care less about how California's doing, it's not like I live there. But no state should be banning gay marriage.

WanderingDroid
You should care California is one of the ten largest economies in the world. We go down...we take a BIG part of the US with us.

Accept it! We're your friggin Daddy!

Well, sorry for that...very off topic and unfair to BF. I close my arguments.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by WanderingDroid
I'm neither happy nor sad for this..... as of matter of fact I'm sick of hearing it. But I will note something that does bother me.

What's the point of voting when a certain interest group will take things to court and find a judge that is sympathetic to their cause?

Same with Arizona.

Voting is irrelevant...welcome to modern liberalism.

Now that a certain interest group can take things to court and get a sympathetic judge....then by all reason birthers can now take Obama to court and demand proof of his birth certificate. And other shit....

Prop 8 go away please...our state is bankrupt and personally that should have priority #1.

That is all.

This isn't "modern" anything, the system was designed this way. Propositions are voted on before their legality is determined. The judge determined that Prop8 was illegal and overturned it in those grounds.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This isn't "modern" anything, the system was designed this way. Propositions are voted on before their legality is determined. The judge determined that Prop8 was illegal and overturned it in those grounds.

That's just silly. Why don't they determine if something is legal before they put it to the vote.
What was the point of people voting in that case in the first place?
Such system is counter productive.

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's just silly. Why don't they determine if something is legal before they put it to the vote.
What was the point of people voting in that case in the first place?
Such system is counter productive.
If we did it that way, we'd waste huge amounts of money fighting court cases on things that don't end up passing anyway.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Kandy
If we did it that way, we'd waste huge amounts of money fighting court cases on things that don't end up passing anyway.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Who exactly would fight these court cases if nothing is put to the vote?

If the court decides that perhaps drugs could be legal, they should decide if such is a law that does not go against constitution and the likes - if it does not, then its put to the people to vote on it. Pretty logical.
Not getting people to vote on it, then thinking about if it's legal or not.
It's EXACTLY the same process, but reversed.

So there are no ''court cases'' of which you're talking about.

dadudemon
Well, this is a case of two types of democratic oppression:

Prop 8: A very simple case of majoritarianism: the oppression of a minority by the majority.


The overturning of Prop 8: A very simple case of purely democratic legislation being overturned by one person. The majority spoke and it was batted aside.


Each side can be argued to be all of these: morally, ethically, and logically wrong.


I don't believe in oppressing the wants of the minority, as long as those wants don't harm me or my family. (AKA, being able to drive while drunk: I'm all for rights, but keep those ***holes out of the driver's seat.)


The science says that there's nothing wrong with a homosexual couple getting married. Mormons can still call it a sin and the couple can stay out of my "private organization" church. It's a win-win. I fail to see the dilemma in gay marriage. erm

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That makes no sense whatsoever. Who exactly would fight these court cases if nothing is put to the vote?

If the court decides that perhaps drugs could be legal, they should decide if such is a law that does not go against constitution and the likes - if it does not, then its put to the people to vote on it. Pretty logical.
Not getting people to vote on it, then thinking about if it's legal or not.
It's EXACTLY the same process, but reversed.

So there are no ''court cases'' of which you're talking about.
Just because you've 'thought about' whether things will be legal or not doesn't mean they actually will be found to be. Most politicians simply do not have the kind of knowledge of the constitution that judges have. If we had pre-analysis of all laws, they'd end up being carried to court and then they'd be wrong half the time anyway.

Let me give you an example; the health care legislation passed recently. Republicans stonewalled the whole thing for months past where it would have been if it had simply been voted on. If it had to be determined legal before hand, they would have carried suit all the way to the supreme court and gummed the whole thing up for possibly years. Nothing would ever have gotten passed.

Bardock42

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your continuous misuse of the word "effect" affects and bothers me. Though you are correct in saying that it doesn't effect you, that is surely not what you meant. I dun got owned. hmm

*affect

The Dark Cloud
I really don't care about the issue, there are a lot more important and pressing matters to be dealt with. I will say it's pretty sad when one man can overrule millions of voters. I guess democracy means nothing in America.

Edit: and everyone here cheering the judge scares me.

Peach
Well, if millions of voters vote for something that's unconstitutional, then yes, they have the possibility of being overruled by one person. That's simply how the US law-making system works.

America isn't even a true democracy anyway.

ADarksideJedi
It should not be even consider either way.

Bicnarok

Peach
Originally posted by Bicnarok

Marriage originally comes from Abrahamic based religion, and is meant as a union between man and women.

No, it most certainly does not originally come from Abrahamic religions - the concept existed long before any of those religions did. I will never understand where this idea comes from. There are laws regarding marriage in Hammurabi's Code, and certainly has existed far longer than that.

Not to mention the fact that these days marriage is a legal thing. If religions don't want to perform marriages between two people of the same gender, fine. But they shouldn't use that to get in the way of people wanting to have the same legal rights anyone else would get for a committed relationship.

§P0oONY
We simply have civil paretnerships here in the UK... A thing any sane person can agree to. It gives Homosexuals every right to be joined in civil union without calling it marriage. It gives them the same rights without pissing of religious people. Sure, there are a lot of homosexuals who still don't like the fact they can't get "married" but this is necessary to appease most.

One could argue that allowing it ingringes the rights of the church by cheapening marriage by allowing homosexuals marry (I don't believe it does... but many do) as much as the ban is infringing the rights of the homosexuals who wish to marry.

As far as I'm concerned.. If you're not homosexual or you're not opposed to homosexual marriage this simply isn't your battle. There is no right and wrong here like so many think there is.

Peach
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.

Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument. Especially since I'd say that divorce and annulments 'cheapen' marriage more than allowing gays to marry.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Peach
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.

Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument. I meant it cheapens marriage as a whole... The same way you could argue divorce does.

Peach

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Peach
Hah, read my edit stick out tongue

I just don't get how it cheapens marriage at all. Marriage is a legal thing. Yes, you can marry in a church and have a religious ceremony and all, but it's not a legal marriage without that piece of paper from the courthouse. If you believe that marriage is just a legal thing then you're obviously wrong. There is tradition behind it... Even if it's not adheared to by everyone.

Look, I don't have any problem with the notion of homosexuals getting married... But do I think that they have a moral right to it? No (The same legal rights... sure, see my bit on Civil Partnerships.)... Some things simply aren't made for everyone. The debate simply isn't that cut and dry.

I don't agree that they should put it foreward for public vote and then simply overrule it in the courts.

Robtard
All the butt-hurt haters, especially the religious hate-groups that spent millions of dollars in getting Prop 8 passed in the first place, now being told "sorry, what other people do is none of your business; they have the same rights as you do", brings a smile to my face.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, this is a case of two types of democratic oppression:

Prop 8: A very simple case of majoritarianism: the oppression of a minority by the majority.


The overturning of Prop 8: A very simple case of purely democratic legislation being overturned by one person. The majority spoke and it was batted aside.

Yeesh, when the minority gets oppressed that's bad. When the majority gets oppressed that's bad. Will nothing make you happy?

Peach

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Peach
Well, if millions of voters vote for something that's unconstitutional, then yes, they have the possibility of being overruled by one person. That's simply how the US law-making system works.

America isn't even a true democracy anyway.

I have not read the judges ruling but having read the Constitution many times I'd really like to know what he's basing decision on. Unlike Arizona's immigration law (which I support but admit is unconstitutional) there's nothing in the constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over what defines marriage. We will see what the US Supreme court says as this case will doubtless end up there.

You're right about America not being a democracy and it's become a Republic in name only anymore, much like China is communist in name only. America has become a mercantilist oligarchy.

§P0oONY
All I'm saying is give them the same legal rights.... Just don't call it marriage.

Can the homosexuals in the partnership say they're "married"... Of course. Then can be Man... and erm... Man... Or Wife and... well Wife. But legally they're not "married" they're just something on par.

It's simply a way of appeasing the majortiy.


I'm also saying don't put it up for people to vote on if their vote means nothing.

Ushgarak
They didn't know it meant nothing. New legislation is always subject to legal review; it is the same everywhere.

The idea of legally reviewing everything before it is in law on is entirely impractical and against the way things work in common sense.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The idea of legally reviewing everything before it is in law on is entirely impractical and against the way things work in common sense. No... It's not.

AthenasTrgrFngr
imo "it will appease the majority" is just as bad as "its tradition". **** the majorities' unhappiness. theyll eventually get over it just like theyve gotten over every other civil rights movement. if they didnt then we wouldnt have things like interracial marriages and colored politicians, both concepts of which were heavily hated and detested at the time of their introduction.

Ushgarak

Symmetric Chaos

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes it is. You are simply and entirely wrong to believe otherwise. There is no other practical way for the system to work and I find this objection to the process surprising and depressing- it shows a certain ignorance. If you say so.

Ushgarak
I'm just the messenger. Common sense and sensible analysis says so.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm just the messenger. Common sense and sensible analysis says so. zzz

Robtard

Ushgarak
Look, what possible sensible grounds can there be for dissent?

I see one of three arguments being advocated here

- That new laws should not be subject to review. That is plainly ludicrous; all new laws are subject to a check to see if they are legitimate, else any old nonsense could be passed, like a 'ban blacks from marrying' law. In the US, this checking is done via the constitution, but all western countries do the process in some form.

- That this law has some special exemption because the people voted for it. Not at all- referendum is simply the way the law was passed; it granted it no special rights and especially not the ability to override the constitution. I don't like doing things by referendum, but all involved knew what they were doing- that they were passing a law which would then be subject to review. Indeed, the 'no' proponents directly gave the fact it was unconstitutional as a reason to junk it, so they were warned; blame those who voted yes in spite of that for wasting everyone's time

- That the legal system should review potential laws. That is absolutely insane. There is no legal system in the world that has 1% of the time needed to review laws that are not actually laws, just ideas. What a colossal waste of time that would be- far more than this episode. It is ridiculous to launch a legal review on something that is not actually a law.


Regardless of how you view it, there is no other way this could work. A law has been passed, but a review of that law has- thus far, as I am sure this will go on- found it to be illegitimate by the rules it must follow. Those who framed the law are at fault for trying to pass a dud law; those who voted for it likewise.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Robtard
I've heard this time and time again; I don't understand it. If you have no problem with homosexuals-couples receiving the same rights as hetero-couples, why the stink over the use of a word?

If I said: "Give Black-people the same right to vote as all others, just don't call it voting in regards to Blacks." What would you say/think? Just to appease people... That's all.

There is no reason not to give it a different name.



To Ush: hmm................. zzz

AthenasTrgrFngr
edit

Ushgarak
Well, what a well-reasoned counter to my argument.

Flyattractor
If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place.

Peach

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, what a well-reasoned counter to my argument. Why bother countering something that bores you?

If you're looking for an arguement you're not getitng one here buddy.

Originally posted by Peach
Appeasing the majority shouldn't even be something that's given any sort of thought in something like this. They'll live, trust me. They don't have ownership of the word.



...have you like...read anything in this thread? Why not? Appeasing the majority by calling it something else doesn't hurt anyone. It happens in lots of different countries and it gets a lot less opposition from both sides than anything else done.

Ushgarak
If the topic bores you then don't waste time posting about it in the first place. But as you did and it was in error, it was corrected.

Don't spam a thread with useless replies again.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place.

As I said above.

1. Because all laws, passed by whatever means, are subject to review after they are adopted.

2. Yes, definitely a judge should have that much power. That is their job. You are looking at it the wrong way round- the question is, should the voters of one state have the power to override the constitution on a whim? Nope, and it's the judiciary that acts to stop that.

People are acting as if this judge is just some guy who has been given an overwhelming veto he used at will. No, he is the arbitrator of a complex legal framework that has been activated by those seeking a review of a law they believe to be in error. They brought a proper legal process; he administered it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Flyattractor
If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

There is essentially no vetting process for propositions. Putting one in place would be crazy. This point has been made repeatedly.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place.

One judge to overturn an illegal proposition, which is his job. In the US the Constitution (in this case the 14th amendment) comes before simple democracy and is enforced by the judiciary.

Robtard

Ushgarak
I think SC and I are on the same page here...

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Robtard
Trying to appease bigotry, probably not a good idea in the long run.

There is no reason to not call it marriage. Is just as valid a sentence and carries zero bigotry. I personally just believe Civil Partnerships are a good way foreward. They're not in anyway inferior to marriages. Why get lots of people pissed off over semantics?

Robtard

King Castle
its not like they are getting married in catholic churches dont see why ppl get all butt hurt: "marriage is our word its not fair".

grow up.

anyways homosexuals should have the same exact legal rights as any other person.. including civil union not my problem what they do in the comfort if their homes aint hurting me.

King Kandy

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I said above.

1. Because all laws, passed by whatever means, are subject to review after they are adopted.

2. Yes, definitely a judge should have that much power. That is their job. You are looking at it the wrong way round- the question is, should the voters of one state have the power to override the constitution on a whim? Nope, and it's the judiciary that acts to stop that.

People are acting as if this judge is just some guy who has been given an overwhelming veto he used at will. No, he is the arbitrator of a complex legal framework that has been activated by those seeking a review of a law they believe to be in error. They brought a proper legal process; he administered it.

Then what is the point of having an election or for that matter an vote on anything if all it takes is a few lawyers and one persons ability to overturn them.

Why even bother with them any more.
This is something that should be worked out before its voted on.
Not be subject to a minority who don't like it being allowed to overrule the majority that voted for thier choice in say on the matter.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Then what is the point of having an election or for that matter an vote on anything if all it takes is a few lawyers and one persons ability to overturn them.

Why even bother with them any more.
This is something that should be worked out before its voted on.
Not be subject to a minority who don't like it being allowed to overrule the majority that voted for thier choice in say on the matter.
Tough shit. That's the way it is in the constitution.

Robtard
^
Because not all laws created are bullshit and hate hidden under a thin veil.

Ideally, that would be great. But the way the legal system works, it's not feasible. It could literally hold up needed laws for years, if not decades.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Kandy
Just because you've 'thought about' whether things will be legal or not doesn't mean they actually will be found to be. Most politicians simply do not have the kind of knowledge of the constitution that judges have. If we had pre-analysis of all laws, they'd end up being carried to court and then they'd be wrong half the time anyway.

Let me give you an example; the health care legislation passed recently. Republicans stonewalled the whole thing for months past where it would have been if it had simply been voted on. If it had to be determined legal before hand, they would have carried suit all the way to the supreme court and gummed the whole thing up for possibly years. Nothing would ever have gotten passed.

Republicans have the right to push their own agenda, just like everyone else does. They are after all, ''republicans'' not democrats. Their whole ideology is based around republic which utilises democracy, not democratic state which is ruling by majority.

Besides, USA is not a democracy, but a republic.
Therefore, it (should) have a clear stance, according to constitution what should be legal for vote and what not.

Even then, if constitution guarantees you the right to free speech, there is no point or sense in voting on it, then thinking about it after.

EDIT- After constitution has rectified a potential law to be in accordance with it, then it should be put to the vote. IF constitution isn't clear on it, then rectify it between judges.

It makes far more sense.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by King Kandy
While we're at it, let's ban blacks from being married. We'll just let them have civil partnerships. Then we can keep all the bigots in their own special club where nobody else is allowed to go. Hahahahahah... please.... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Flyattractor
Originally posted by King Kandy
Tough shit. That's the way it is in the constitution. What?
that piece of paper that gets used as toilet paper by todays ruling class?

What does it have to do with anything?

Bouboumaster
The only thing sad about this is that it's not the entire contry who legalize it.

Still, you're in the right direction.

Flyattractor
Oh give it time.
I am sure the Fed Gov will shove it down the throats of all the states sooner or later.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Oh give it time.
I am sure the Fed Gov will shove it down the throats of all the states sooner or later.

I'm sure they can't do that...force such law on states, I mean.

King Castle
pretty sure the federal government can..

lil bitchiness
Isn't that going to be met with a huge uproar? Hmm...can't see many states standing for that, although, yes, you're right, I'm sure they'll be able to do it, if they wanted to.

King Castle
yes, the states can get pissed cry and moan and try to find every legal loophole they can and go to court.. till then the law is the law especially if the federal government passes it.

it be just like the 60's and 70's the military coming into a state to squash riots or any dissent which imo is highly illegal to use the military against its own ppl.. "if" ppl try to fight it in mass..

anyways today that sh#$ wouldnt happen most modern ppl dont stand up for what they believe in anymore which is why we have lost so many rights..

think of the children!! wont some one think of the children!! its for national security!!

the cry of the tyrant and oppressor

BackFire
Many issues of social rights for a minority group are 'forced' upon states. It's how it worked when the country legalized interracial marriage decades ago. It wasn't put to a vote, because it would have been voted down. Federal judges said it was unconstitutional and they rectified it despite the majority at the time disagreeing. If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by BackFire
If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.

Exactly. If unconstitutional it shouldn't bother with the vote at all. I am not familiar with the constitution of USA, however I trust there are numerous experts who can interpret this and see if it follows the US constitution.

Myself, I am not for arming or guns, HOWEVER regardless of the majority thought on this, if constitution says it is a right, then it should be.

I do have a question, though - if constitution is to be changed and/or amended who makes that decision and how?

Lucius
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do have a question, though - if constitution is to be changed and/or amended who makes that decision and how?

The Supreme Court... at least they determine the legality and how the admentments are interperated on a Federal level.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do have a question, though - if constitution is to be changed and/or amended who makes that decision and how?

If both the House and Senate make a 2/3 vote then they can jointly put together an amendment. Then the legislature of each state has to ratify the amendment. Once there is 3/4 acceptance the amendment is made part of the Constitution, successful amendment usually reach that point in about a year.

Lucius
I knew I had something wrong.

Worthless high school Government class.

King Castle
would have bn better if it was a cartoon song.. i would have responded earlier but couldnt find the cartoon..

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If both the House and Senate make a 2/3 vote then they can jointly put together an amendment. Then the legislature of each state has to ratify the amendment. Once there is 3/4 acceptance the amendment is made part of the Constitution, successful amendment usually reach that point in about a year.

Interesting, thanks.

And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, thanks.

And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)
No.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, thanks.

And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)
No. That was done away with when they switch for the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and it has been pretty soundly stated in the past that if a state secedes, the United States of America will not allow it.

This is good. I understand being apprehensive because a court overturned it, but it shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

King Castle
last time that happen it caused the civil war... no one would allow it.

abe Lincoln gave a speech about why they cant and every state would secede every time there was a disagreement. iirc

kU818pXKlvE&feature=related

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, thanks.

And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)

As per the Constituation, no, but the Supreme Court ruled (Texas v. White) that states can leave the union if they get permission from the federal government or, obviously, if they militarily overpower the rest of the country.

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As per the Constituation, no, but the Supreme Court ruled (Texas v. White) that states can leave the union if they get permission from the federal government or, obviously, if they militarily overpower the rest of the country.

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

The reason I asked was exactly because of Texas. I was speaking to the person from Texas with whom I've been discussing independence. (of Quebec, not Texas).
He claimed there is a small independence movement there or something.
Equally, he spoke about the laws, not specifically gay marriage, but others(?) which certain Texans do not favour and believes Texas would sustain itself well on its own.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The reason I asked was exactly because of Texas. I was speaking to the person from Texas with whom I've been discussing independence. (of Quebec, not Texas).
He claimed there is a small independence movement there or something.

There are succession movements all over the country, probably more in Texas because they seem to believe they have the right to leave any time they vote on it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Equally, he spoke about the laws, not specifically gay marriage, but others(?) which certain Texans do not favour and believes Texas would sustain itself well on its own.

I doubt it. The economy of all the states is pretty closely tied together. They would also have the problem of being invaded immediately by the US due to the missile silos there.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by BackFire
Many issues of social rights for a minority group are 'forced' upon states. It's how it worked when the country legalized interracial marriage decades ago. It wasn't put to a vote, because it would have been voted down. Federal judges said it was unconstitutional and they rectified it despite the majority at the time disagreeing. If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.
Why should people of a "Sexual Nature" be given the status of a minority?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why should people of a "Sexual Nature" be given the status of a minority?


Because they are both a statistical minority and a social minority. More importantly, it doesn't matter since the 14th Amendment isn't just for minorities.

AthenasTrgrFngr
Why should people of a "colored nature" be given the status of a minority? its just a skin color!! D=

King Castle
u are colored aren't you? no expression

AthenasTrgrFngr
yups! yes

StarCraft2
its overturned because I would guess that gay sex feels so good and people are willing to fight for it.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
Why should people of a "colored nature" be given the status of a minority? its just a skin color!! D= Exactly

§P0oONY
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
Why should people of a "colored nature" be given the status of a minority? its just a skin color!! D= Nah, it' not jsut a skin colour... Black people can run faster and are more predisposed to heart problems... hmm

lil bitchiness

King Castle
i really have a hard time believing any of that.. the belly thing angle..

i can see why one race might be better at something due to physical attributes but to call it on the position of the belly button i find it preposterous..

swimming has more to do with buoyancy then the position of your belly body and center of gravity.. imo.

i'm not watching discovery channel anymore..

StarCraft2
http://i.nuseek.com/images/template/360x318/hk_gay_couple_beach_20095614_165637.jpg
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID4107/images/p7_insight_gay_dads.jpg

Bardock42
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am sure the same old arguments on both sides have been brought up, and likely the one I am going to state, too, but here it is anyways. In an ideal world I'd get away with the term marriage altogether. In fact the government would not recognize civil unions in any particular way other than how it now handles any contract between people. I'd figure what we understand as marriage would be basically the same as people incorporating as they do already. That way 2 or more people of age can make contracts regarding their financial and social conditions and they would be sanctioned in the same way any private contract is. That would allow the same status for polygamous and homosexual relationships as monogamous heterosexual ones (and no there's no slippery slope for children, animals and toasters). In private anyone can call their union anything they want and have any ceremony they want.

I mean I can see the point of marriage, however there seem to be better, more modern ways to deal with it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Peach
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.

Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument. Especially since I'd say that divorce and annulments 'cheapen' marriage more than allowing gays to marry.

I'd like to point out that your first line is definitely false. Gays and gay rights activists have and continue to campaign to get churches to lose their tax exemption status if they refuse to marry gays.

However, it's far more likely that that won't get passed in America when America was founded upon strong anti-government opression ideals such as separation of church and state.


That is a word mess, right there, and I could pick apart my on sentence with many different arguments. So, to help prevent that, I'm talking about the state controlling churches. As long as churches are not harming children or the people (basically, not doing criminal things), then they should stil lbe tax exempt and get to exclude people from "their club." That's basically it.


In other words, I should be able to fom a private non-profit ccurhc for every single person except for kids with the name "Susan."

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Castle
i really have a hard time believing any of that.. the belly thing angle..

i can see why one race might be better at something due to physical attributes but to call it on the position of the belly button i find it preposterous..

swimming has more to do with buoyancy then the position of your belly body and center of gravity.. imo.

i'm not watching discovery channel anymore..

Well certain scientists believe so in a study published last month - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRv5sUxxWidc9Go7BQLl8iSIwcJw

You're free to make your own conclusions, I guess.

King Castle
they are referencing a particular body part.. like leg length and torso and yet the scientist say its the belly button?

erm i'm sorry but these guys need to be slapped around.

african traits allow for the running as well as climate and training...

Caucasians cant say much about the swimming other then maybe the majority of black community dont have a swimming pool to train in.. i mean if there are 10 white swimmers and 1 black swimmer the odds are better that one of the white guys wins. geek

this reminds me of the carlos mencia steroetype olympics

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am sure the same old arguments on both sides have been brought up, and likely the one I am going to state, too, but here it is anyways. In an ideal world I'd get away with the term marriage altogether. In fact the government would not recognize civil unions in any particular way other than how it now handles any contract between people. I'd figure what we understand as marriage would be basically the same as people incorporating as they do already. That way 2 or more people of age can make contracts regarding their financial and social conditions and they would be sanctioned in the same way any private contract is. That would allow the same status for polygamous and homosexual relationships as monogamous heterosexual ones (and no there's no slippery slope for children, animals and toasters). In private anyone can call their union anything they want and have any ceremony they want.

I mean I can see the point of marriage, however there seem to be better, more modern ways to deal with it.

I don't think polygamous marriage would work in current system, unless you have away current tax system.
As long as tax and legal framework are good, doesn't matter what you call the union.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't think polygamous marriage would work in current system, unless you have away current tax system.
As long as tax and legal framework are good, doesn't matter what you call the union.

There shouldn't be any special tax statuses, really. And there's no reason why it wouldn't work for more than 2 people. Like I said more than two people can open a business together, without there being a big problem with taxes.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Castle
they are referencing a particular body part.. like leg length and torso and yet the scientist say its the belly button?

erm i'm sorry but these guys need to be slapped around.

african traits allow for the running as well as climate and training...

Caucasians cant say much about the swimming other then maybe the majority of black community dont have a swimming pool to train in.. i mean if there are 10 white swimmers and 1 black swimmer the odds are better that one of the white guys wins. geek

this reminds me of the carlos mencia steroetype olympics

Read the article. It says bellybutton is the centre of gravity, so the hight is not important but the position of the belly button to the rest of the body.
And leg length is important because if individuals in W Africa have longer legs, their belly button is almost two inches higher than those of European origin.

I don't believe we should shy away from such research in a fear of being labelled racist. It impairs our own knowledge of ourselves.

King Castle
i am not saying we should shy away ppl can go on and study that..

i just think the assumption of the belly button being the main reason is flawed.. i attributed it to overall physical training and adaptability to ones environment not the placement of belly button and gravity.

what about buoyancy or lung capacity and blood distribution and even lactic acid build up and what not i dont think any of that was even factored in..

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Castle
pretty sure the federal government can..

And it's called the supremacy clause...if I'm understanding the context of the conversation, properly.

Originally posted by King Castle
it be just like the 60's and 70's the military coming into a state to squash riots or any dissent which imo is highly illegal to use the military against its own ppl.. "if" ppl try to fight it in mass..

weeeellll..... This:

"...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

King Castle
i am fully aware of the constitution buddy and the oath of the american soldier. no expression

there are also various military laws and regulations that would stop a marine from obeying any order that is illegal no matter who orders it..

ucmj

you are implying that protesters are attacking the constitution and its fundamental laws..

tell me you really think a platoon will open fire on a bunch of demonstrators?

do u think it is remotely legal or constitutional let alone allowed by the UCMJ... no military power is to be used on american civilians as law enforcement under the posse comitatus..

few exceptions but it applies to the marines, navy army

just to let you know it is also illegal for the military to operate on american soil, without declaration of martial law nor has the power to enforce any law until stated as such by the president..

anyways although it is illegal it has bn overlooked for the rally cry of think of the children!! and what about the terrorist!!

everyone is so paranoid and scared to sound anti american and be kicked out of office that no one says anything.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Castle
i am fully aware of the constitution buddy and the oath of the american soldier. no expression

there are also various military laws and regulations that would stop a marine from obeying any order that is illegal no matter who orders it..

ucmj

you are implying that protesters are attacking the constitution and its fundamental laws..

tell me you really think a platoon will open fire on a bunch of demonstrators?

do u think it is remotely legal or constitutional let alone allowed by the UCMJ... no military power is to be used on american civilians as law enforcement under the posse comitatus..

few exceptions but it applies to the marines, navy army

just to let you know it is also illegal for the military to operate on american soil, without declaration of martial law nor has the power to enforce any law until stated as such by the president..

anyways although it is illegal it has bn overlooked for the rally cry of think of the children!! and what about the terrorist!!

everyone is so paranoid and scared to sound anti american and be kicked out of office that no one says anything.

You can pretend that the people were always civil and never did anything illegal in their protests...but that's simply not the case.


Sure there were wrongs, but they were on both sides.



Also, if there exists any law that states that the US military cannot operate on American soil (which is simply stupid since they operate on American soil, allllllllll the time), then the US constitution automatically supersedes that law. smile

Edit - I think you're referring to the Posse Comitatus Act. ....right?

King Castle
military bases dont count smart@$$... if a marine or a army humvee pulled you over and saying you are under arrest..

technically they are kidnapping you and its a crime against your person pretty sure it would be federal if they did it in uniform..
the military can only enforce the law on base not outside of base.

anyways the homeland security thing has military personal operating on american soil like look out post stopping random cars and asking for citizenship... although the orders come from on high like Washington it is unconstitutional but no one is fighting it... its still illegal and the military has no authority to pull you over but then ppl dont want to get shot either so they comply..

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Castle
military bases dont count smart@$$... if a marine or a army humvee pulled you over and saying you are under arrest..


laughing laughing laughing


You know me too well.


Well, I wasn't just talking about military bases. I was referring to training camps...or pretty much anything at all related to military operations on US soil...which is a HUGE area of so much stuff.

Originally posted by King Castle
technically they are kidnapping you and its a crime against your person pretty sure it would be federal if they did it in uniform..
the military can only enforce the law on base not outside of base.

anyways the homeland security thing has military personal operating on american soil like look out post stopping random cars and asking for citizenship... although the orders come from on high like Washington it is unconstitutional but no one is fighting it... its still illegal and the military has no authority to pull you over but then ppl dont want to get shot either so they comply..

"SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.


(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'."


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109WE79WE:e939907:



In the words of the great sage, Rogue Jedi, PWNED!


laughing




I was really just making it a point to make sure the correct information is out there, man. Nothing personal against you, at all. I'm annoying like that.

King Castle
and yet you posted all that and care to point out where i said anything against that.

reread what you posted and tell me where it applies with what i said..

tell me where it says the military can be used to stop a demonstration like they did back in the day.


none of that even contradicted what i said..

facepalm

Ushgarak
Oh good lord- can we cut out this waste of time now? Thank you.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
There shouldn't be any special tax statuses, really. And there's no reason why it wouldn't work for more than 2 people. Like I said more than two people can open a business together, without there being a big problem with taxes.

D'accord. However, marriage has its own special tax benefits for both partners and their children. If, let's say there were two wives or two husbands for one person, tax system for them would not be the same, no?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh good lord- can we cut out this waste of time now? Thank you.

Holy sh*t, dude, you're such a grouchy person and you're being rude. Lighten up a bit. erm




Really, my point was to correct a tangent that KC Masterpiece got off on using real law....AND to piont out the fact of the supremacy clause, which directly applies to the constitution and this very topic.






Derrivision: there needs to be a proving via constituional supremacy that supports the judge's ruling. I find no legislation, constitutional supremacy - even with a liberal application of the elastic clause, - and no federal justification for overturning the ruling.


State Constitution: maybe. If someone can find something in CA's constituion that allows the overturning of Prop 8, so be it. (Should be there in the 128 + page document produced from the ruling.)




And, yes, if people start protesting this, the Posse Comitatus Act could very well come into play. Any time there is something this major, overturned, that had such strong backing and opposition from both sides, "rioting" and "protests" are sure to ensue. It actually happened when it passed. There definitely could have been some martial law smacked down, if it go any worse. There was quite a bit of vandalism going on. Luckily, it was just the libtards doing that. But how will the conservatards handle this?


Originally posted by King Castle
and yet you posted all that and care to point out where i said anything against that.

reread what you posted and tell me where it applies with what i said..

tell me where it says the military can be used to stop a demonstration like they did back in the day.


none of that even contradicted what i said..

facepalm

Err...it's right in there in what I posted. erm

You don't even have to be very liberal with the "necessary and proper clause" to see where it can quite easily be applied to violent protests against legislation (Prop 8).

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
D'accord. However, marriage has its own special tax benefits for both partners and their children. If, let's say there were two wives or two husbands for one person, tax system for them would not be the same, no?

That's why I said I think the government should stay out of it tax wise.

But yeah.

Tired-Hiker
Oh my god, there must be so many pissed off Mormons.

Ushgarak
dadude, don't tell me to lighten up or that I am being rude when I give you a moderating instruction.

For blatantly carrying on after I told you to stop, you are receiving a warning,. Again and it is a ban.

Impediment
To quote Bill Hicks:

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemma on how to answer this, I'll answer for you: None of your f*cking business. Take that to the bank, cash it and take it on a vacation outta my f*cking life. And stop bringing shotguns to UFO sightings, they might be here to pick me up and take me with 'em."

I'm not going to write a lengthy rebuttal, but I will say that I think that this is a very good thing. Two people who are genuinely in love, regardless of sex, should have every right to marry.

lil bitchiness
As far as government goes, to me gay marriage makes very little of a dilemma. There is no need for gay couples to not be able to marry and enjoy benefits, not only of status but also tax and other property benefits.

As far as church goes, it shouldn't even be in the question. I think church has the right, as a religious institution to decline to marry gays in church, however, that shouldn't matter in the slightest. The important thing is that the government recognises it.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am sure the same old arguments on both sides have been brought up, and likely the one I am going to state, too, but here it is anyways. In an ideal world I'd get away with the term marriage altogether. In fact the government would not recognize civil unions in any particular way other than how it now handles any contract between people. I'd figure what we understand as marriage would be basically the same as people incorporating as they do already. That way 2 or more people of age can make contracts regarding their financial and social conditions and they would be sanctioned in the same way any private contract is. That would allow the same status for polygamous and homosexual relationships as monogamous heterosexual ones (and no there's no slippery slope for children, animals and toasters). In private anyone can call their union anything they want and have any ceremony they want.

I mean I can see the point of marriage, however there seem to be better, more modern ways to deal with it.
I would agree totally. But basically imo, marriage is all or nothing. Either all civil union should be called marriage, or all marriage should be called civil union. After all doing it otherwise would cast a dichotomy that subtly implies one is better than the other.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that your first line is definitely false. Gays and gay rights activists have and continue to campaign to get churches to lose their tax exemption status if they refuse to marry gays.

However, it's far more likely that that won't get passed in America when America was founded upon strong anti-government opression ideals such as separation of church and state.


That is a word mess, right there, and I could pick apart my on sentence with many different arguments. So, to help prevent that, I'm talking about the state controlling churches. As long as churches are not harming children or the people (basically, not doing criminal things), then they should stil lbe tax exempt and get to exclude people from "their club." That's basically it.


In other words, I should be able to fom a private non-profit ccurhc for every single person except for kids with the name "Susan."
imo, no church should have tax exempt status. I really see no reason why they should be, especially when it has been proven that it is far more easy for a religion to be recognized as a tax-exempt non profit than it is for a secular organization. iirc, Richard Dawkins had to fight the system for years to get a rationalist group that status while religious groups are usually approved after their first application.

Impediment
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as government goes, to me gay marriage makes very little of a dilemma. There is no need for gay couples to not be able to marry and enjoy benefits, not only of status but also tax and other property benefits.

As far as church goes, it shouldn't even be in the question. I think church has the right, as a religious institution to decline to marry gays in church, however, that shouldn't matter in the slightest. The important thing is that the government recognizes it.

Duly noted.

Now if gays can be accepted into the military......we'll have to wait and see. I see no difference, either, since I, myself, am ex-military.

Adam_PoE

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Impediment
Duly noted.

Now if gays can be accepted into the military......we'll have to wait and see. I see no difference, either, since I, myself, am ex-military.

Wait, I thought they were? Don't ask, don't tell?

I don't know about this, so feel free to correct me.

AthenasTrgrFngr
their not accepted... hence the... "dont tell" part no expression

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wait, I thought they were? Don't ask, don't tell?

I don't know about this, so feel free to correct me.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is considered to basically be code for "no gays". Another phrasing would be "If you come out, you're out".

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
their not accepted... hence the... "dont tell" part no expression

That could be considered ''we don't want to know'' rather than ''no gays''.
Constructive contribution to a debate fail.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Don't ask, don't tell" is considered to basically be code for "no gays". Another phrasing would be "If you come out, you're out".

So they get discharged based on their sexuality. Makes little sense, however I always though that 'don't ask, don't tell' was more of an appeasement to homophobes who stick their noses in other people's business, but that they accepted gays without wanting to know about it.

If one is found out other way than ''telling'', I assume he/she is discharged?

King Castle
if he informs command they are removed after they substantiate the claim..

the dont ask dont tell imo is to keep ppl from soliciting other military personal as sexual harassment or prejudice..

plus one of the articles is the sexual position which missionary is the only legal position.

also article 134 conduct unbecoming of a marine...

i have known 3 gay guys in the marines never had a problem with them.. 2 were being discharged one was for inappropriate conduct and drug abuse... the other told his unit about his sexual orientation and claimed to be getting harassed.. suspicion he was just looking to get out marines were happy to comply.

anyways the last one was naval medic really cool guy everyone knew he was gay none of us really cared.

anyways those are the ones i knew personally it never bothered me..

AthenasTrgrFngr
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That could be considered ''we don't want to know'' rather than ''no gays''.
Constructive contribution to a debate fail.


it could be but only a dumb person would come to that conclusion! big grin

dadudemon

Lucius
Why do churches get tax exemption in the first place?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
it could be but only a dumb person would come to that conclusion! big grin

I would reconsider what you just wrote. Troll me one more time and you're banned.

King Castle
you just scared me... sad

maybe some one answered this but is there any current government military that openly excepts homosexuals?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lucius
Why do churches get tax exemption in the first place?

I think they're considered charities.Originally posted by King Castle
maybe some one answered this but is there any current government military that openly excepts homosexuals?

Not many*


*Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cololmbia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

lil bitchiness
Cololmbia. It's full of lol.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're considered charities.
Why do charities get tax-exempt status?

AthenasTrgrFngr
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I would reconsider what you just wrote. Troll me one more time and you're banned.

whoops sorry sad

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why do charities get tax-exempt status?

Because they're non-profit organisations.

Ushgarak
Again, folks, please keep it to the topic. The tax exempt status of churches or powers of military personnel can be discussed elsewhere.

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because they're non-profit organisations.
I understood that, but I don't understand why that itself is a qualifier.

Though i'm going to close this discussion on that, per Ush's request.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're considered charities.

Not many*


*Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cololmbia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

You definitely forgot Germany.


I still think that the government shouldn't have this special part in marriage though. I don't see a problem with all those unions being called civil partnership, and being extended to any group of people that want to enter into such a contract.

Rapscallion
i don't want to be rude and change topics away from tax exemption, and don't ask don't tell, but i'd like to discuss gay marriage...


i'd like to address some early questions regarding why the word "marriage" is important. some people asked why not grant gays the same legal rights and just call it something else like "civil union" the reason i believe so many gays object to this is because the word "marriage" has certain connotations besides those that are simply legal. obviously, marriage is an indication of the love that two people feel for each other. for many people being married is the deepest expression of love that one person can make for another. therefore, to grant gays equal legal rights but deny them the word "marriage" would seem to suggest that gay people somehow lacked the capacity to love as deeply as heterosexual couples. to suggest that homosexuals are not as loving as heterosexuals is understandably extremely upsetting to the gay community and is probably why the word "marriage" is so important and why the civil union between to gays must be called "marriage" by the state. if they don't call it that, they would be denying the full humanity of homosexuals and refuse to acknowledge their capacity to love as human beings. words are important.

just my two cents.

Adam_PoE

dadudemon

Ushgarak
Adam's link and post specifically refuted your link, Dadude. Displaying that attitude when you have clearly not even bothered to read what he posted makes you in error, not him. If you wanted to make some sort of counter argument, fine, but trying to make out he is trolling when he posted to show why your point was wrong puts you in a very bad light.

Still, prolonging this argument would distract from the topic also, so if we could concentrate on the prop 8 thing it would be nice.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Adam's link and post specifically refuted your link, Dadude. Displaying that attitude when you have clearly not even bothered to read what he posted makes you in error, not him. If you wanted to make some sort of counter argument, fine, but trying to make out he is trolling when he posted to show why your point was wrong puts you in a very bad light.

Still, prolonging this argument would distract from the topic also, so if we could concentrate on the prop 8 thing it would be nice.

No it doesn't. You didn't read the link I posted. erm


And, again, you're being rude.



Edit - After reading everything, it's quite obvious that Adam is completely clueless as to what my actual point was. You are too. Go back and reread my point. The right thing to do is for both of you to apologize for your rudeness and arrogance.

Ushgarak
Hopefully some time off will help you improve your posting behaviour. If not, your next ban will be permanent.

753
I didnt read everything, but I'm curious about this. Religious marriage has legal validity in the usa? Churches can be authorized to marry people in the eyes of the law?

§P0oONY
Originally posted by 753
I didnt read everything, but I'm curious about this. Religious marriage has legal validity in the usa? Churches can be authorized to marry people in the eyes of the law? Religious marriage has legal validity in most countries... if not all.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>