Page 134 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3484124132133134135136144184 ... LastLast
Results 1,331 to 1,340 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1331
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I see Redress. If at first you don't you don't succeed... change your argument entirely. And now you want to claim that by calling Walker's decision irrelevant I meant the entire case had no relevance to the legal process.
    His findings on the facts are part of his decision, and are relevant at the next level. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, and you have been denying with no evidence.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #1332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Well, look at it this way.

    If the GOP stopped getting in the way of equal civil rights for everyone, there's the possibility that the gays may start using their brains in the polling booth and start voting for people who are trying to cut taxes, cut spending, and reverse the damage the Messiah and the Progressives have been doing to the country.

    No reason to expect the GOP should get the support of people who are the targets of their irrational intolerance.

  3. #1333
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    His findings on the facts are part of his decision, and are relevant at the next level. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, and you have been denying with no evidence.
    No, Findings of Fact, Conclusions and the Decision & Order are all separate components of the ruling.

    The decision refers to what conclusion was reached. Claiming a conclusion irrelevant does not mean that everything used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant.
    Last edited by Taylor; 08-06-10 at 07:19 PM.

  4. #1334
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be quite that easy. This will be a fairly long ongoing battle. Just as the battle for civil rights took time, this will too. However, it will be worth it in the long run.
    Not too much longer.

    The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is going to rubber stamp the District Court's opinion.

    The Roberts' court has four flaming libtards, who will support the Ninth Circus on this matter, and four constitutionalists, most of whom can be relied upon to obey the Constitution, and if they do that, they rule that Prop 8 is in violation of the 14th Amendment, and then there's judge Kennedy, who swings both ways.

    I don't expect Proposition 8, supported by at least 20% of the Obama voters, to stand.

    And once same-sex marriage is once again lawful in California, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution takes effect, and the other states will be forced to recognize ALL marriages in California, whether they themselves allow such marriages in their own states or not. These final challenges won't take that long. I'm guessin five years, tops.

  5. #1335
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    No, Findings of Fact, Conclusions and the Decision & Order are all separate components of the ruling.
    So let's see, me saying the finding of facts are part of the ruling is wrong because they are a component of the ruling...
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #1336
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So let's see, me saying the finding of facts are part of the ruling is wrong because they are a component of the ruling...
    You said the findings on the facts are part of his decision and are trying to suggest that because I said his conclusion was irrelevant, that everything that was used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant. That is illogical.

    EDIT:
    I meant to say:
    That is illogical and I'm off to go eat pizza and have a beer.

    Have a good evening!
    Last edited by Taylor; 08-06-10 at 07:24 PM.

  7. #1337
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    He tried. The 9th circuit decision is irrelevant as this will end up in the SCOTUS. They aren't going to decide a landmark case based on Walker's "facts."
    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    You said the findings on the facts are part of his decision and are trying to suggest that because I said his conclusion was irrelevant, that everything that was used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant. That is illogical.

    EDIT:
    I meant to say:
    That is illogical and I'm off to go eat pizza and have a beer.

    Have a good evening!
    Those are your actual words. You are wrong. Enjoy your pizza and beer.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #1338
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    I disagree. The Constitution protects individual rights and sometimes whole groups have a valid complaint about the law discriminating.
    When it comes down to it the argument that if Jill can marry John BUT Tom can't marry John is discriminatory then ......
    If John can marry Jill but Tom can't ALSO marry Jill it's just as discriminatory to Tom and based on a government definition of what marriage is.
    First, while it may be discrimination, it would be difficult to suggest its anything greater than the lowest tier on the EPC status groupings, which is still lower thane Gender which is my argument. It would still apply to all my arguments regarding rational reasons why the state has an interest in discriminating against said groupings which is all that would be required under the lower tier of the EPC.

    Additionally, in this case you're coming into an issue with contracts. To argue that such would be the case...essentially that you not being allowed to enter into a contract with something that is entered into a contract with something else in ALL cases....would be to suggest the government is unable, due to discrimination, provide for ANY type of contract that gives sole authority or joining to a person. IE, it would equally suggest that a government approved contract for a plot of land could not stop someone else from purchasing a contract and equal rights to that same piece of land, because by your own reasoning if Jim can buy that land from Jill but Tom can't ALSO buy that land from jill, then its discriminatory to Tom.

  9. #1339
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    I disagree. The Constitution protects individual rights and sometimes whole groups have a valid complaint about the law discriminating.
    When it comes down to it the argument that if Jill can marry John BUT Tom can't marry John is discriminatory then ......
    If John can marry Jill but Tom can't ALSO marry Jill it's just as discriminatory to Tom and based on a government definition of what marriage is.
    Thank you though for being the first person to at least try and give a clear example of how they think there is evidence of inequality in regards to the inability to have multi-person marriages and what said inequality is.

  10. #1340
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Zyphlin .

    California law discriminates against polygamist's in such a way that limits the fundamental right to marry more than one, who's affections, and emotional bond is uniquely singular. CA law requires that only two people, of independent standing, can substantively experience the love, and the emotional ties that impart the wanting of a marriage commitment, whereas, the polygamist is limited by CA law, in the wanting of marriage among as many persons the individual's they themselves loves, and maintains the emotional ties that impart the very same wanting of a marriage commitment. There is no legal precedent that concludes with a condition that the fundamental right that marriage carries, be of only two people, only that people have the fundamental right to marriage. It is CA law that places a limitation on the number of individuals that can experience the same kind of wanting, and love, and emotional ties that bind a marriage commitment.

    Therefore, it is my opinion, that the State of CA discriminates against polygamist, and their practice, by limiting their practice altogether, rendering a polygamist as less worthy of the same protections of love, and marriage, by limiting the amount of people the polygamist can share those natural affections for the wanting of marriage.


    Thoughts?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Posting Permissions

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