NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/

More typical pot smoking hippies who don't care bout any one but themselves.

Trial courts cannot overturn Supreme Courts. If this is allowed to stand its a travesty. Its a clear abuse of power. The judge should be impeached and removed from office.

He didn't overturn a Supreme Court decision.

The California Supreme Court only ruled that the Mayor of San Francisco exceeded his authority - they made no ruling on the validity of same-sex marriage.

This current judge and his ruling are on the validity of same-sex marriage.

Make sure you read the article before posting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/

More typical pot smoking hippies who don't care bout any one but themselves.

yeah, isn't it selfish how they are extending legal marriage to include all couples, not just the couples who insert a penis into a vagina in the service of Our Lord Jeebus?


Trial courts cannot overturn Supreme Courts. If this is allowed to stand its a travesty. Its a clear abuse of power. The judge should be impeached and removed from office.
you need to review the legal process in this case before you continue ranting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/

More typical pot smoking hippies who don't care bout any one but themselves.

Trial courts cannot overturn Supreme Courts. If this is allowed to stand its a travesty. Its a clear abuse of power. The judge should be impeached and removed from office.

Is it too much to ask that you read what you yourself link to?

Personally, I don't have a problem with same sex couples. If they love each other, isn't that all that matters? :)

Hooray for misinformed clueless ranting! :D

Don't those f ing liberal morons realize that there are times when seperate is equal. The court has been revisiting a lot of its seperate but equal cases and reversing its decision in many of them, cause the original court used faulty logic when it made them.

Don't those f ing liberal morons realize that there are times when seperate is equal.

No, because it never is.

And by calling people "morons" you say more about yourself than about them.

yeah, isn't it selfish how they are extending legal marriage to include all couples, not just the couples who insert a penis into a vagina in the service of Our Lord Jeebus?


you need to review the legal process in this case before you continue ranting.
only hetersexuals have a right to marry. Homos don't have that right. This has already been decided by the people, in referendum after referendum.

Don't those f ing liberal morons realize that there are times when seperate is equal. The court has been revisiting a lot of its seperate but equal cases and reversing its decision in many of them, cause the original court used faulty logic when it made them.
examples? sources?

No, because it never is.

And by calling people "morons" you say more about yourself than about them.
Yes it is. To say it is not, is an argument based on fallacious reasoning. We need to stop debating, change the constitution both state and federal then ship all gays into exile cause they're all anti american.

only hetersexuals have a right to marry. Homos don't have that right. This has already been decided by the people, in referendum after referendum.

Ah yes... the votes of a brainwashed people, totally loyal to their country no matter what. You are a clear example of this brainwashing.

Oh, and stop being such a biggot. Try some tolerance for once. Life is changing, and clearly you are afraid of this. It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with...

If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

only hetersexuals have a right to marry. Homos don't have that right. This has already been decided by the people, in referendum after referendum.

Although some courts may have decided this, what makes you so shure that it is right?!? Shouldent marrige be defined by 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Yes it is. To say it is not, is an argument based on fallacious reasoning. We need to stop debating, change the constitution both state and federal then ship all gays into exile cause they're all anti american.
ladies and gentlemen, the "TOTAL TROLL" flag has been raised by the ref, signifying the presence of a troll on the field. all play should cease until such time as the troll has left the field.

Ah yes... the votes of a brainwashed people, totally loyal to their country no matter what. You are a clear example of this brainwashing.

Oh, and stop being such a biggot. Try some tolerance for once. Life is changing, and clearly you are afraid of this. It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with...

If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
In the US, when you a hold a referendum, that means the people have the final say. There is absolutely nothing the courts can do about it.
And if the people vote and say gays have no rights, then gays have no rights. What's so hard to understand?
Marriage is one man and one woman and that it is the way it shall forever be.

Ah yes... the votes of a brainwashed people, totally loyal to their country no matter what. You are a clear example of this brainwashing.

Oh, and stop being such a biggot. Try some tolerance for once. Life is changing, and clearly you are afraid of this. It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with...

If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

I agree with your statment, "It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with..." If people who are opposed to gay marrige could just spend some time with a gay couple, and I mean really spend some time with them (not just judge them) then I think they would realize that they are just another couple in the grand scheem of things,

Yes it is. To say it is not, is an argument based on fallacious reasoning. We need to stop debating, change the constitution both state and federal then ship all gays into exile cause they're all anti american.

And by that, I shall not let your bigoted rants take up any more of my time.

I agree with your statment, "It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with..." If people who are opposed to gay marrige could just spend some time with a gay couple, and I mean really spend some time with them (not just judge them) then I think they would realize that they are just another couple in the grand scheem of things,
NO. Because gays are trying to overthrow the United States.

And if the people vote and say gays have no rights, then gays have no rights. What's so hard to understand?

Look into why countries have constitutions, because you obviously have no idea what constitutions are for.

when we this reforendom held??? i can't rember hearing about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/

More typical pot smoking hippies who don't care bout any one but themselves.

Trial courts cannot overturn Supreme Courts. If this is allowed to stand its a travesty. Its a clear abuse of power. The judge should be impeached and removed from office.
Oh Heavens! It's the slippery slope people! If we don't do something about it asap before we know it women will be wanting the vote and blacks will want to sit at the front of the bus!

when we this reforendom held??? i can't rember hearing about it...
several states passed ammendments banning gay marriage during the last major election. of course, these actions are just as unconstitutional as the referendums that enforced segregation in public schools, so i'm not terribly worried about them in the long run.

several states passed ammendments banning gay marriage during the last major election. of course, these actions are just as unconstitutional as the referendums that enforced segregation in public schools, so i'm not terribly worried about them in the long run.
those referendums have been upheld by court after after since they passed.

Look into why countries have constitutions, because you obviously have no idea what constitutions are for.
the people can change the constitution

those referendums have been upheld by court after after since they passed.
check your facts: those referendums haven't been TESTED by "court after court," so they have neither been upheld nor rejected (yet). also, do remember that segregation was "upheld by court after court" for many years...that didn't make it constitutional, and that didn't stop us from eventually tossing it out.

EDIT: gah, major FOUL. i got draw in by the troll-baiting. five minutes in the penalty box for me.

NO. Because gays are trying to overthrow the United States.

Clearly, you have a subconcious fear of gays. Get over it. Society is changing, and there is nothing you can do about it. I've met some gay guys at work, and they are extremely kind and polite. To be honest, gays tend to be kinder than most regular people. I find your fear extremely foolish. Stop denying it. You are afraid of gays. GET OVER IT.

It's amazing how the states that voted (Which you refer to), are RED states. No wonder they voted to ban gay marrige. If you ask me, republicans are merely afraid of the unknown. They are like early 30's Germany.

NO. Because gays are trying to overthrow the United States.
Oh god, you found our nefarious scheme! Blast and damnation, foiled again by a meddling do-gooder! Well you may have won this round, but we'll be back! We'll always come back!

the people can change the constitution

No, the people cannot. Not where I live, and not where you live either. Not the federal one, at least, which only congress and 3/4 of state assemblies can change.

"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention."

It's amazing how the states that voted (Which you refer to), are RED states. No wonder they voted to ban gay marrige. If you ask me, republicans are merely afraid of the unknown. They are like early 30's Germany.
what i find funny is that people who claim to support the party of small government are the ones voting to give the government immensely expanded powers. the Republicans used to be the champions of reducing government size, yet they are the ones begging the government to decide who we can have sex with, what we can imbibe, what we can wear, and who we can love.

EDIT: gah, major FOUL. i got draw in by the troll-baiting. five minutes in the penalty box for me.

*joins Bottle, hanging head in shame*

what i find funny is that people who claim to support the party of small government are the ones voting to give the government immensely expanded powers. the Republicans used to be the champions of reducing government size, yet they are the ones begging the government to decide who we can have sex with, what we can imbibe, what we can wear, and who we can love.

In reality, you're not any more free in america as people were in stalins russia.

...
Marriage is one man and one woman and that it is the way it shall forever be.

Sounds familiar. Let's see:

Colonial US: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and his chattel – and so it will always be! Indeed, once married, a woman became the property of her husband – his chattel."

US in slavery times: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between two white people – and so it will always be!”

US 1967: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman of the same skin color – and so it will always be!"

I think I made my point here.

NO. Because gays are trying to overthrow the United States.
...by having butt sex?

...by having butt sex?

Of course.

Kneel before the awesome power of anal sex!

only hetersexuals have a right to marry. Homos don't have that right. This has already been decided by the people, in referendum after referendum.

Sometimes the people are just plain wrong, remember things like slavery, the holocaust etc ?

Homophobia is a rampant problem in the US, and you are a prime example of this completely antiquated view.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/
Trial courts cannot overturn Supreme Courts. If this is allowed to stand its a travesty. Its a clear abuse of power. The judge should be impeached and removed from office.

Have you ever taken a civics, or United States government class? Please tell me you haven't.

If I were a mod I would have already locked this topic.

If I were a mod I would have already locked this topic.

Same here. I've tried to reason with him, but all I get back are insults/mindless winging.

No, the people cannot. Not where I live, and not where you live either. Not the federal one, at least, which only congress and 3/4 of state assemblies can change.

"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention."

what a dumbass. I was talking about the state constitution moron.
And yes the people can change the constitution.
As for the federal, three fourths of the states would approve a ban on gay marriage. The only thing holding it up is the US Senate, particularly pot smoking hippies in the US Senate.

I agree with your statment, "It is understandable to have a subconcious fear of the unknown. But face that fear, brace yourself and try to tolerate those you have a problem with..." If people who are opposed to gay marrige could just spend some time with a gay couple, and I mean really spend some time with them (not just judge them) then I think they would realize that they are just another couple in the grand scheem of things,
First of all, I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. What I am opposed to is having it forced on states, in direct violation of states' rights.
It is the states and their people who decide whether gay marriage is constitutional or not. Not the courts. If the people change their state constitutions to ban gay marriage, then such bans cease to be unconstitutional.
The US constitution does not give marriage rights to any one.
And those who claim it does, clearly don't a freaking clue as to what they are talking about.
The fact is that this is the argument:
I am saying let the people decide, and you saying let the courts force things on them in violation of our democratic principles.

check your facts: those referendums haven't been TESTED by "court after court," so they have neither been upheld nor rejected (yet). also, do remember that segregation was "upheld by court after court" for many years...that didn't make it constitutional, and that didn't stop us from eventually tossing it out.

EDIT: gah, major FOUL. i got draw in by the troll-baiting. five minutes in the penalty box for me.
Nothing in the state constitutions or the federal constitution legalized segregation. The constitutions were in fact, neutral on the subject. But you can have seperate but legal as long as the funding and quality are equal.

Sounds familiar. Let's see:

Colonial US: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and his chattel – and so it will always be! Indeed, once married, a woman became the property of her husband – his chattel."

US in slavery times: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between two white people – and so it will always be!”

US 1967: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman of the same skin color – and so it will always be!"

I think I made my point here.
Homosexuality is a choice. Skin color, race, and gender are not.

Sometimes the people are just plain wrong, remember things like slavery, the holocaust etc ?

Homophobia is a rampant problem in the US, and you are a prime example of this completely antiquated view.
The holocaust was by hitler, not the people. There was no referendum.
Nor were there any referendums held on slavery.

Nothing in the state constitutions or the federal constitution legalized segregation. The constitutions were in fact, neutral on the subject. But you can have seperate but legal as long as the funding and quality are equal.

You failed civics class, didn't you? We don't live in a democracy. Classical Athens was a democracy. We are a republic. Rome was a republic. Democracies allow direct representation of the people. The people vote, and that vote is law. It lends itself to mob rule, where the majority completely squelches out the rigths of the minority. We live in a republic, where we elect representatives to represent us in lawmaking. We also have a system set up to ensure that there is no tyranny of the majority. The majority cannot simply vote away the rights of the minority just because they have the votes. That's the entire principle of our government.

Same here. I've tried to reason with him, but all I get back are insults/mindless winging.
that's because you are a pot smoker.

You failed civics class, didn't you? We don't live in a democracy. Classical Athens was a democracy. We are a republic. Rome was a republic. Democracies allow direct representation of the people. The people vote, and that vote is law. It lends itself to mob rule, where the majority completely squelches out the rigths of the minority. We live in a republic, where we elect representatives to represent us in lawmaking. We also have a system set up to ensure that there is no tyranny of the majority. The majority cannot simply vote away the rights of the minority just because they have the votes. That's the entire principle of our government.
California is a direct democracy. The people can do what the hell they want, in California.
It nice you know the federal govt. is a republic but do you know anything at all about state governments? The federal Constitution gives the states a lot of lee way in making their decisions on policies such as this.

that's because you are a pot smoker.
How do pot smokers keep getting dragged into this?

How do pot smokers keep getting dragged into this?
their brains are so fried that they are willing to allow foreigners strip the US of its soveringty and they allow terrorists to kill innocent people and then say we shouldn't fight back.

what a dumbass. I was talking about the state constitution moron.

Aww, look, you don't have to get childish and start calling people names just because you are losing the argument. Please, grow up.

Anyhow, the state constitution in this case hasn't been changed. You should start reading what you link to. Or actually try to have a clue what you are talking about.

Also, what matters is the federal constitution in the long run.

And yes the people can change the constitution.

State, yes. And, they haven't in this case.

As for the federal, three fourths of the states would approve a ban on gay marriage.

I call BS on that. You of course have no proof of that.

The only thing holding it up is the US Senate, particularly pot smoking hippies in the US Senate.

What did we say about acting like a name-calling child? Naughty boy!

And if the people vote and say gays have no rights, then gays have no rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

Aww, look, you don't have to get childish and start calling people names just because you are losing the argument. Please, grow up.

Anyhow, the state constitution in this case hasn't been changed. You should start reading what you link to. Or actually try to have a clue what you are talking about.

Also, what matters is the federal constitution in the long run.



State, yes. And, they haven't in this case.



I call BS on that. You of course have no proof of that.



What did we say about acting like a name-calling child? Naughty boy!

1. That is the issue, the fact that they are moving to change it.

2. The federal constitution can be changed too.

3. The fact is that your side does not have the votes to block it.

Don't those f ing liberal morons realize that there are times when seperate is equal. The court has been revisiting a lot of its seperate but equal cases and reversing its decision in many of them, cause the original court used faulty logic when it made them.


if seperate was equal, wouldn't that be a waste of money? if it was equal it wouldn't need to be seperate.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
are you willing to start a civil war so you can have those rights? If not, then if the people, by referendum, decide gays don't have rights, then gays don't have rights. The only alternative is civil war, which of course means that you have to commit treason in which case you give up your other rights.

1. That is the issue, the fact that they are moving to change it.

It hasn't happened, and it will most likely fail. California is not Alabama.

2. The federal constitution can be changed too.

Not by the people.

3. The fact is that your side does not have the votes to block it.

"My" side already did.

are you willing to start a civil war so you can have those rights?
It's happened twice before, yes?
:eek: :mp5: :gundge:

If not, then if the people, by referendum, decide gays don't have rights, then gays don't have rights.
Have you heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm)"? Today's De Tocqueville quote: "When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave. A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

The only alternative is civil war, which of course means that you have to commit treason in which case you give up your other rights.
The person who believes civil rights are optional is saying I would be a traitor? :rolleyes:

their brains are so fried that they are willing to allow foreigners strip the US of its soveringty and they allow terrorists to kill innocent people and then say we shouldn't fight back.
So, wait-
The pot smokers have become brain fried and are letting the terrorists get their way, and part of that is that gays are allowed to marry in California?

The terrorists want gay marriage? Wha-huh?






Can I buy some pot from you?

what a dumbass. I was talking about the state constitution moron.
Whittier-, this entire thread is trolling, and you've crossed the line into flaming with this post. Since this particular incarnation of your nation appears to have a clean record, I'm merely going to lock this thread. Next one will be an official warning and a mod discussion on Whittier's future participation in the NationStates forums.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator