Prop 8 Overturned

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.

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

😬 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. 🤓

this reminds me of the carlos mencia steroetype olympics

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.

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.

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?

😬 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. 🤓

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.

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..

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..."

i am fully aware of the constitution buddy and the oath of the american soldier. 😐

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.

Originally posted by King Castle
i am fully aware of the constitution buddy and the oath of the american soldier. 😐

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. 🙂

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

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..

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..

😆 😆 😆

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!

😆

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.

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

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

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?

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. 😬

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. 😬

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.