Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Well, don't kill this one just yet! I have important things to say!

Like... um...


+1

That's the sort of record that the 4channers would take as a challenge.

The reason the Constitution doesn't say anything about SSM is because it wasn't even a topic of discussion in the 18th century. They wrote the Constitution based on issues that were important then, not now. They overhauled only the laws that had been egregiously broken by the monarchy. The Crown had nothing to say about people getting married or divorced in the US aside from them paying any taxes related to it.

When the Constitution was written, it wasn't perfect. A LOT of **** got skipped over because no one thought it was important at the time. That's why we have an amendment process, after all. It's been patched up considerably, and those patches open up whole new avenues for interpretation of new issues as they arise. That's why we have the judicial branch of government.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame that on you being half-asleep, because that didn't make a damned ounce of sense.



I'll do you one better: Here are your writings which brought the constitution into the mix:

First, Xsarus asserts that there is no overarching historical rationale for banning SSM. Then you say:



Here's you taking it further:



Okay, here's Joph's rebuttal quote from when you tried the argument that you just tried on me. It's on page 35.



Notice how he said the exact same thing that I did? He's addressing your initial claim. You assert that there is an overarching rationale for the US's ban on SSM since 1780, that the US analyzed same-sex marriage law before adopting the British conventions.

If you want to claim that SSM was analyzed and banned during the changeover from British rule, then the burden is on you to prove that. That means historical documents and quotations, not guesses based on your shoddy history knowledge. Those do jack **** to assert your claims.



See above. Proof of what?

Anyway, what's the point of that diversion, anyway? You said it yourself, the Constitution gets amended. We make changes to our laws as issues are uncovered, issues which are sure to be in flux as society evolves. Same-sex marriage is more accepted today than it was then. We need to adjust our laws to reflect current societal standards.

How many posts in that thread, out of curiosity?

There are people I definitely despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They gain a respectable foothold for Mr. Almalieque's pushy ideas. In case you can't tell, I'm talking about Almalieque here. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care -- a large enough number to put the fear of God into Almalieque. If it is not yet clear that his efforts to push our efforts two steps backward are the reason we have so many problems today with alienation, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and aimlessness on the part of our young people, then consider that to believe that black is white and night is day is to deceive ourselves. We'll know soon enough just how insincere these sorts of libertines can be. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to solve the problems of gnosticism, opportunism, economic inequality, and lack of equal opportunity. I say that because his criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Almalieque's criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in his "I think … I believe … I feel" game.

Think about this: I try never to argue with Almalieque because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. His functionaries claim to have no choice but to dispense bread and circuses to fatuous desperados to entice them to commit all sorts of mortal sins -- not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, muddleheaded converts to elitism. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand. Almalieque looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. That's what's important to me. Either way, I believe in "live and let live". Almalieque, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his cop-outs but endorsement of them. It's because of such inaniloquent demands that I aver that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Almalieque. Not only is Almalieque more duplicitous and more jejune than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Almalieque's satraps are just as bad as Almalieque is, if not worse. But did you know that in this era of rising fanaticism we must get him off our backs? He doesn't want you to know that because one of his favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy, never the original problem.

Almalieque, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that if you can make any sense out Almalieque's unpatriotic ravings then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. What does Almalieque have to say about all of this? The answer, as expected, is nothing. Currently, he lacks the clout to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard. But before the year is over, he will have enough operatives to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for his capricious, quarrelsome claims, I think we can safely say that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but some people think it's a bit extreme of me to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that I certainly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Almalieque does any real damage. Or is it already too late? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why can't Almalieque state the facts straightforwardly without their being exaggerated, aggrandized, altered, fiddled with, dressed up, falsified, and, in short, Almalieque-ized? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that there is only one way to stop Almalieque from making my blood curdle. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of grungy hooligans, people who are willing to straighten out Almalieque's thinking. Then together we can find the inner strength to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Together we can show the world that Almalieque, with his craftiness and lubricious hatchet jobs, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches one of these days. Almalieque will then use those riches to displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion. The moral of this story is that the last time I told his deputies that I want to build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world they declared in response, "But at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. In short, all Mr. Almalieque has managed to attain with his sentiments is a jab at hardworking individuals. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.

Random insult/complaint letter generator.

No need to meme it.

I think my point stands.

The AoK thread (and I assume Kao actually means this thread, which is really named "OMG WTF SUPER IMPORTENT NEED HELP THREAD!! LOOK AT MY CAPS 2" because, unfortunately, people name threads stupid things) has over 32,000 posts.

But yeah, that Bored Druid thread is still kind of weaksauce in terms of long threads.

(Though this probably says something about some kind of inefficiency hiding in the forum code, that a single 32k-post thread can bog the servers down. One of the other forums I frequent - the MTGSalvation forums - currently has nine active threads of over 10,000 replies in a single forum. They're using vBulletin instead.)

Do you even know what the 14th amendment says?

You know what amendment didn't pass? The Federal Marriage Amendment which would have constitutionally defined marriage to only be between one man and one woman. Jus' sayin'.

I never said it didn't,and we weren't talking about where our rights came from. What we were asserting is that the constitution does not represent a review of the accepted massive common law of the day. What it does give us is a framework to evaluate said laws in the case that they come up. A law could be unconstitutional but still exist because no one has challenged it.

A law's origin doesn't necessarily take away the merit of the law, but it certainly casts it into doubt. If a law is created due to the church and the country at some later point realizes it is secular, that law would have to be justified with new non-religious reasons. Perhaps the law is easy to justify, but saying somehow you don't have to because origins don't matter is simply avoiding the question because you know you don't have an argument.

Of vodka, right?