Page 50 of 61 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 609

Thread: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

  1. #491
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    They are being denied access to public money because they do discriminate, in the same way that they can deny the KKK or a Muslim group that won't let women join.

    This is the typical response of the religious nuts: they discriminate left and right for reasons that have no basis in logic, but when someone challenges them they claim to be the victims. Pitiful, actually.
    Great post!

  2. #492
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    So you are open to all forms of marriage without descriminating against age, number of people or family bond? If you say no you yourself just denied equal treatment to people.


    This is the fallacy that pro gay marriage people always seem to fail to understand.
    No, that's a dumb ass argument on your part. You can discriminate with just cause or reason. What you can't do is discriminate without just cause or reason. You not liking it is not reason enough. Each issue has to stand on it's own, and either you have just cause or you don't. The issue before us is same sex marriage; do you have just cause or not. If you don't have more than you don't like it, you don't have just cause or reason. So, let's not throw up anymore fallacuous arguments like you do above.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #493
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,795

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, that's a dumb ass argument on your part. You can discriminate with just cause or reason. What you can't do is discriminate without just cause or reason. You not liking it is not reason enough. Each issue has to stand on it's own, and either you have just cause or you don't. The issue before us is same sex marriage; do you have just cause or not. If you don't have more than you don't like it, you don't have just cause or reason. So, let's not throw up anymore fallacuous arguments like you do above.
    ...but then he wouldn't have anything to say
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #494
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    LOL What are you talking about? The people voted against gay marriage. A pro gay marriage judge overturned it. The people AGAIN voted against gay marriage. Now the pro gay marriage crowd is looking for another round of judicial activism and bypass the send proposition voted on by the people.

    You are the ones wanting to circumvent the law. Not the majority of the people who voted against it.
    You don't seem to know your history very well:

    In a Primary election in 2002: Prop 22 passes making by statute, marriage defined as between a man and a woman (which, by the way, was already California law since AB 607 in 1977, so it was a redundancy.)

    In 2005: California Legislature passes AB 849, negating Prop. 22 and AB 607 from 1977 and making California law recognize marriage between same-sex partners.
    Later that month: Schwarzenegger vetoes AB 849 because of court challenges to Prop 22; stating he believed that the issue of constitutionality should be settled by the courts.

    In 2007: California Legislature passes AB 43, once again legalizing same-sex marriage; once again Schwarzenegger vetoes citing the case before the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Prop 22.

    In May, 2008: California Supreme Court overturns Prop 22 and AB 607 of 1977 stating that sexual orientation is a protected class on the same order of gender, race, and that, according to precedent in the courts 1948 ruling in Perez v. Sharp, marriage is a "basic civil right" (as did SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia).

    In November, 2008: Prop 8 passes.

    So, you're right in the sense that the people voted twice. However, you fail to recognize that twice, the legislature - the representatives of the people voted to legalize marriage; only to be vetoed by the governor simply because the constitutionality of the first law was already in the process of being questioned.

    Thus, marriage discrimination was deemed unconstitutional once; the constitution was altered; BUT the biggest flaw in Prop 8 is that it only addresses marriage; when the California Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation IS a protected class on the same par as race and gender - Prop 8 became a constitutional conundrum.

    You have one part saying: gays are equal in all aspects of due process and treatment under California law; and another part (one sentence basically) saying they are not.

    You claim that I want to circumvent the law; you wish to circumvent the constitution - which is now in crisis because California lets people amend it at the whims of special interest groups.

  5. #495
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    And I'm tired of people trying to force religions to accept their sexual orientation.
    NO ONE is forcing any religion to accept homosexuality! Where do you get this crap?

    You are trying to make US follow your religious belief that gays shouldn't be treated equally.

    No one anywhere has proposed a bill that will make a church anywhere be forced to be nice to gays or marry them.

    Find me that bill or that court ruling. Find it.
    _______

    Oh, I then read on. Somehow I KNEW you would completely misinterpret that ruling.

    It's not at all about who gets to be a member of a club. It's about getting public money to fund said club.

    You want to hate gays. Go right ahead. But you're not going to get government money to do it.

    No one's right was restricted at all - except for their right to sponge off public funds without following public rules.

    Do you believe that your religion allows you to walk around Wal Mart calling everyone you suspect of being gay the f-bomb without being kicked out of the store? If you do, then you don't understand how our entire system works. It's your right to insult Wal Mart customers all you like. But you can't do it inside their stores and then sue them when they kick you out.

    It's the same for the Christian Lawyers at the Cal-Hastings Law School. To get the money, they have to follow the rules set forth. If they don't like the rules, then they don't get the money.

    It's not nearly as hard to figure out as you like to think.
    Last edited by FilmFestGuy; 06-29-10 at 07:26 PM.

  6. #496
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    You're free to consider a marriage to be whatever the hell you want it to be. No one can impose anything on you in that regard. The only thing we care about is that the government recognizes same-sex unions in the same manner they recognize opposite sex unions. You're free to go on believing whatever the hell you want to.
    And I have the right to vote so that my government doesn't recognize something that isn't marriage as marriage. I am for special legal status, but not marriage status because a homosexual union is not marriage. The government can recognize same sex unions, but they shouldn't recognize them as a marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    In answer to your question: A little document called the Constitution.
    Yes, and the Constitution gives states the right to govern. My state made homosexual marriages illegal, and all legal ones will be annulled if the couple moves to TN. It also outlaws polygamy. California voted, gay supporters are mad because their definition of marriage wasn't pushed. I have every right to vote and stop what I believe to be immoral perversion from being legally accepted as marriage. It's not unconstitutional to legally define marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman. My state (along with many others) have legally defined marriage this way, and none have found them or ruled them to be unconstitutional.
    Last edited by digsbe; 06-29-10 at 08:09 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #497
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And I have the right to vote so that my government doesn't recognize something that isn't marriage as marriage. .
    Then you should advocate that the government only recognizes civil unions and leaves the term marriage in the private sector. One reason being is that religions do recognize gay marriage and others don't.

  8. #498
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Then you should advocate that the government only recognizes civil unions and leaves the term marriage in the private sector. One reason being is that religions do recognize gay marriage and others don't.
    The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. I want the government to recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. Homosexual unions would not be recognized as marriage, but given some form of legal status.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #499
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. I want the government to recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. Homosexual unions would not be recognized as marriage, but given some form of legal status.
    Well cry me a river. It is a legal contract and any one of age should be able to enter into one equally.

  10. #500
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Well cry me a river. It is a legal contract and any one of age should be able to enter into one equally.
    I agree. However the legal contract of marriage is not extended to homosexual unions, because they are not marriage. They can file for civil unions, but not for marriage.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 50 of 61 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •