I IMMEDIATELY HIT EDIT, ****!
Nexa
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read
The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Gotta be fast, Nexa.
Fast.
Fast.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Totem wrote:
/waves at BastokFL
/savors his cup o'**** and grins through dooky stained teeth
Nope, ain't dyin' yet. What I said still is the truth: We all have the same rights, no more, no less. Not my problem you aren't satisfied with them. You've had several opportunities to make your case to the state of California, and each time the voting public has resoundingly said marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Period.
Lern2livew/it.
Totem
/savors his cup o'**** and grins through dooky stained teeth
Nope, ain't dyin' yet. What I said still is the truth: We all have the same rights, no more, no less. Not my problem you aren't satisfied with them. You've had several opportunities to make your case to the state of California, and each time the voting public has resoundingly said marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Period.
Lern2livew/it.
Totem
Samira wrote:
Gotta be fast, Nexa.
Fast.
Fast.
But I'm so tired today :(
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Trying to make inter-racial marriages and gay marriages the same is a bogus argument. There is no connective relationship between the two.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Trying to make inter-racial marriages and gay marriages the same is a bogus argument. There is no connective relationship between the two.
Totem
Totem
To you. I'm content with civil marriage between two consenting adults who love one another and want to make their union official. Religious marriage can be religious marriage, but there is no reason to not make civil marriage for two consenting adults.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Totem wrote:
Trying to make inter-racial marriages and gay marriages the same is a bogus argument. There is no connective relationship between the two.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Trying to make inter-racial marriages and gay marriages the same is a bogus argument. There is no connective relationship between the two.
Totem
Totem
You mean besides the fact that both have been outlawed in this country at one point in time because good upstanding reactionaries felt it was somehow immoral?
As I've said before, my marriage would presently be invalid had the Oregon law banning the marriage of a white person to person who is more than 1/32 "Chinaman" still existed five years ago. And for no better reason than mere bigotry.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 12:48pm by Ambrya
Sure he/she does. Sexual attraction isn't part of the equation. Many, if not most heterosexual marriages are sexless or nearly so, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary. Arranged marriages in other cultures did not involve sex either, since it was financial, social, and hereditary issues that concerned the arranging parents.
The majority has spoken and now it's time to accept that gays cannnot get married in California. Nobody is stopping them from having an open relationship, congregating together, or ostensibly raising children if they could find a willing childbearer. They can be in a civil union too. Just not a marriage.
Totem
The majority has spoken and now it's time to accept that gays cannnot get married in California. Nobody is stopping them from having an open relationship, congregating together, or ostensibly raising children if they could find a willing childbearer. They can be in a civil union too. Just not a marriage.
Totem
DISCLAIMER:
By the way, nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice. The poster is not a licensed attorney qualified to give such advice.
That said ...
If the passage of Prop 8 would invalidate marital relationships previously sanctioned by law in California at the time they occurred, then it seems it would run afoul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10). I assume that might be one of the grounds for any law suits already planned.
That doesn't mean the whole Prop would be held to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. More likely, a successful attack on these grounds might result in the requirement to continue to recognize marriages that were legal at the time they occurred.
Another possibility is that the Federal Courts would refuse to entertain such a lawsuit until there were an actual attempt to apply it to such previous marriages ... not yet ripe for adjudication.
Good luck. I'd be happy to take the case if I had my license and had enough experience to be up to the challenge -- which I don't, yet.
EDIT: Typo fixed
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 3:44pm by Ahkuraj
By the way, nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice. The poster is not a licensed attorney qualified to give such advice.
That said ...
If the passage of Prop 8 would invalidate marital relationships previously sanctioned by law in California at the time they occurred, then it seems it would run afoul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10). I assume that might be one of the grounds for any law suits already planned.
That doesn't mean the whole Prop would be held to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. More likely, a successful attack on these grounds might result in the requirement to continue to recognize marriages that were legal at the time they occurred.
Another possibility is that the Federal Courts would refuse to entertain such a lawsuit until there were an actual attempt to apply it to such previous marriages ... not yet ripe for adjudication.
Good luck. I'd be happy to take the case if I had my license and had enough experience to be up to the challenge -- which I don't, yet.
EDIT: Typo fixed
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 3:44pm by Ahkuraj
Totem wrote:
Sure he/she does. Sexual attraction isn't part of the equation.
Of course it is. What is done in the rest of the world or has been done historically doesn't change the fact that HERE and NOW in the U.S. marriages are made based upon romantic inclination and/or sexual attraction.
YOU can marry the person you have chosen based upon those criteria. But a minority segment of the population can't. Ergo, they do not share the same rights as you. No matter how desperately you try to troll.
#63REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 05 2008 at 1:02 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) This country is still centre-right. The vast majority believe Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. I share that belief. I'm glad our country hasn't shifted centre-left, and I don't think it ever will.
AmorTonight wrote:
This country is still centre-right. The vast majority believe Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. I share that belief.
Good for you, don't marry a man then. There are many that believe a woman's place is in the kitchen, I don't think we need to ******* vote on it.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
AmorTonight wrote:
This country is still centre-right. The vast majority believe Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. I share that belief.
No, not a "vast majority."
#66REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 05 2008 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) YES, vast majority. 62% to 38% in FL. I voted for the proposition. Even in the vastly left california it still got passed. Your wrong, I'm right.
Florida is not the nation.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#68REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 05 2008 at 1:18 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Arizona passed it with 56% to 44%. That is a HUGE margin. There are now 28 states that have a BAN on same-sex marriage. Yes, it is a VAST majority, your wrong. If you ever got out of california you would see.
AmorTonight wrote:
Quote:
No, not a "vast majority."
YES, vast majority. 62% to 38% in FL. I voted for the proposition. Even in the vastly left california it still got passed. Your wrong, I'm right.
And it's legal in Massachusetts, what's your ******* point?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
AmorTonight wrote:
your wrong.
hahahaha
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Sure, sure. Right wingers can't stand the thought of homosexual marriage. Religious people feel that it undermines their special union privileges. I get that.
But it's changing, as you can see from the poll Belkira posted. Even in a few months it changed.
People grow up. Mossbound conservatives who fear all change, even that which affects them in no way at all, eventually die.
Two generations ago interracial marriage was unthinkable. Now it's commonplace.
One generation ago an openly gay member of Congress was unthinkable.
A decade ago a minority President was laughable.
Things change.
But it's changing, as you can see from the poll Belkira posted. Even in a few months it changed.
People grow up. Mossbound conservatives who fear all change, even that which affects them in no way at all, eventually die.
Two generations ago interracial marriage was unthinkable. Now it's commonplace.
One generation ago an openly gay member of Congress was unthinkable.
A decade ago a minority President was laughable.
Things change.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
CNN is reporting Calis prop 8 is still undecided
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/state.laws/index.html
dat true?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/state.laws/index.html
dat true?
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
No, it passed, and the lawsuits were filed almost immediately.
The argument is interesting. They're saying that only the legislature can make such a pervasive change to the state constitution.
The argument is interesting. They're saying that only the legislature can make such a pervasive change to the state constitution.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
From that article:
With 98.3 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 8 was passing 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent. The final results have yet to be certified by the state Secretary by State Debra Bowen.
Some provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied
I can still hold on to hope. It's a small sliver of hope, but hope nonetheless.
Going back to my constitution thread, I honestly think this should be fought hard. Fingers crossed.
Quote:
With 98.3 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 8 was passing 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent. The final results have yet to be certified by the state Secretary by State Debra Bowen.
Some provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied
I can still hold on to hope. It's a small sliver of hope, but hope nonetheless.
Going back to my constitution thread, I honestly think this should be fought hard. Fingers crossed.
Recent Visitors: 202
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (202)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC