Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Dyakovo]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Are you serious? Because that sounds... very... federalist, which libbies don't usually like.

[Farnhamia]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Are you serious? Because that sounds... very... federalist, which libbies don't usually like.

Of course I'm serious. Did you honestly think that we don't have a plan? Come on, we decorate your houses, plan your weddings, corporate events, we fucking run the entertainment industry and turn out the stuff you sit there, night after night, staring at, did you really think we couldn't take over one country? Naturally, one does have to be careful to not move too quickly, and to give an appearance of weakness. This is all pretty basic tactics and strategy. *nod*

[Ryadn]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Farn! You weren't supposed to tell about the new heterosexual rehabilitation program while it's still in beta testing! You know, it does no good to just SHOW UP to the Grand Meeting of Shadowy Leftist Conspirators if you're going to just play Bejeweled on your phone the whole time.

[Farnhamia]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Farn! You weren't supposed to tell about the new heterosexual rehabilitation program while it's still in beta testing! You know, it does no good to just SHOW UP to the Grand Meeting of Shadowy Leftist Conspirators if you're going to just play Bejeweled on your phone the whole time.

Ryadn, darling, I wrote the Homosexual Agenda. Besides, do you think they'll actually believe it?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I fail to see how the Judge's claim that this issue falls under Federal Jurisdiction bears any merit. The only part of the Constitution that applies to this California Law is the 10th Amendment.

Wrong. Try the 14th.

Prove it. This law is completely compliant with the 14th Amendment. No where can you show that Legal Due Process did not occur in the creation of Prop 8. Nor can you show that the Right for Two men to marry is a Constitutional Right. In fact, that falls totally under the 10th Amendment.

This Rogue Judge is outside his jurisdiction.

I am increasingly convinced that "Our Constution" refers to a document you have written yourself and keep under your pillow that bears no resemblance to the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless, every inane misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or lie you have made in your several posts re the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's decison in Perry v. Schwarzenegger has been rebutted in (among many others) this post and this post.

Your failure to make coherent arguments to start from combined with your failure to respond to any substantive correction of your nonsense makes clear the intellectual vacuity of your "position."

[Tekania]

Of course I'm serious. Did you honestly think that we don't have a plan? Come on, we decorate your houses, plan your weddings, corporate events, we fucking run the entertainment industry and turn out the stuff you sit there, night after night, staring at, did you really think we couldn't take over one country? Naturally, one does have to be careful to not move too quickly, and to give an appearance of weakness. This is all pretty basic tactics and strategy. *nod*

You're even part of the production staff at FOX... These people simply have not grasped the concept that they've really already lost.

[Ashmoria]

I fail to see how the Judge's claim that this issue falls under Federal Jurisdiction bears any merit. The only part of the Constitution that applies to this California Law is the 10th Amendment.

Wrong. Try the 14th.

Prove it. This law is completely compliant with the 14th Amendment. No where can you show that Legal Due Process did not occur in the creation of Prop 8. Nor can you show that the Right for Two men to marry is a Constitutional Right. In fact, that falls totally under the 10th Amendment.

This Rogue Judge is outside his jurisdiction.

you are the very definition of troll. or at least an attention whore since you arent really riling anyone up.

the PROOF is perry v schwarzenegger.

claiming that the judge is wrong is not the same as you PROVING the judge wrong by using the same rigorous application of law and evidence that HE used in this court case.

[Muravyets]

Oh sure, if a Rogue Judge can just declare something Unconstitutional then surely another Judge can just declare it Constitutional.

Who's side do you take? We're talking about a Supreme Court which is often divided 5-4 for or against something. Should this Judge's ruling stand or should the other Judge who said it was Kosher stand? Well, guess who's decision that is? The Executive Branch! Mo-fo Cherry Pickers I say! We should get Washington back in to chop down them th'ar cherry trees ubetcha bygolly

you are getting repetitious.

Indeed. The plan is simple. Repeat it long enough until everybody starts believing it.

Uh, the thing he's repeating is going to have to become a lot smarter and saner for that to happen. Even the right wing is starting to show cracks along the blather -- er, I mean, ideology seams (like between the teapartiers and the religious extremists).

[Muravyets]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

That shit cracks me up, it truly does. We're all going up against the wall because the "eww, icky gheyz" crowd failed to come up with a legal argument better than the bullshit gay-haters spout right here in NSG over and over? Oh, hang on a second, let me switch to my looser fitting boots so I can shake in them more efficiently.

[Ifreann]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

That shit cracks me up, it truly does. We're all going up against the wall because the "eww, icky gheyz" crowd failed to come up with a legal argument better than the bullshit gay-haters spout right here in NSG over and over? Oh, hang on a second, let me switch to my looser fitting boots so I can shake in them more efficiently.

Clearly you're going to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Muravyets]

I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.

If we're lucky, they'll keep their traps shut permanently and not remind the vast population of chimps that watch FAUX News that it's once again time to rig votes in California. But I digress.

Give 'em some time... And if not, I'll bet they'll give Zephie a job.

Maddow suggested that it could be because the Tea Party isn't as socially conservative as the religious right, and that the power base in the GOP has shifted away from the religious right. Their high point was making Congress stop what it was doing and actually intervene in a very sad family matter, the Terry Schiavo case, giving us the spectacle of Senators diagnosing that poor woman via a TV feed. Interesting times, eh?

Am I the only one here who would totally do Maddow if she talked politics to me?

You are most certainly not the only one.

I like guys, but if I were going to make an exception... smart + cute = Rachel! I'd take a bit of that.

[Muravyets]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

No wonder you are unable to even reply to posts rebutting your ideological ravings and strange mantras, your statements are so far removed from reality that you clearly have no understanding of what the issue we are discussing even is.

Let me break it down for you:

1. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a right to marriage, based on provisions of the California Constitution. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

2. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 was passed, amending the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

3. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against a technical challenge that it was a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution (and a few other state law issues). The Court held that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages created between May 15 and November 4 of 2008 would be preserved. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (pdf).

4. On May 23, 2009, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 undeer the U.S. Constitution on behalf of two same-sex couples. On August 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court found that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2010) (138p pdf) (ordering clerk to enter judgment for plaintiffs pursuant to FRCP 58).

Thus, we have a provision of state law (actually the California Constitution) being superceded by the U.S. Constitution, exactly as set forth in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What part of this don't you understand?

The answer to your question is "all of it"

Is there a point where a person is just so clearly incapable of even understanding what's being said to them and keeps speaking gibberish utterly removed from even the slightest hint of understanding of how the United States Constitutional system works that you just stop responding to them? It seems we should be well passed that point.

NSG has no such point.

So we'll keep repeating, at length and in great detail, everything the rest of us learned in fifth grade civics class and he'll keep saying the same thing over and over until the end of time? There's nothing to say to him that isn't being said over and over in several threads. He either doesn't read or doesn't understand. It likes talking to a two year-old only he's less rational.

Look at it this way. No matter what we say or do, he'll never stop. But these are the internets, and although NS tries to discourage small children from posting, it is possible that a fourth grader could come in and read these forums. You don't want said fourth grader to read nothing on this topic but OC's bunkum before he even gets to fifth grade to learn the truth, do you? No, as pointless as these circle dances are for us, we must go through the motions for the sake of the children.

Think of the Children!!!

[Muravyets]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Farn! You weren't supposed to tell about the new heterosexual rehabilitation program while it's still in beta testing! You know, it does no good to just SHOW UP to the Grand Meeting of Shadowy Leftist Conspirators if you're going to just play Bejeweled on your phone the whole time.

Ryadn, darling, I wrote the Homosexual Agenda. Besides, do you think they'll actually believe it?

uh... Yeah, I think they will.

[Muravyets]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

That shit cracks me up, it truly does. We're all going up against the wall because the "eww, icky gheyz" crowd failed to come up with a legal argument better than the bullshit gay-haters spout right here in NSG over and over? Oh, hang on a second, let me switch to my looser fitting boots so I can shake in them more efficiently.

Clearly you're going to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

That's what my last boyfriend kept saying, only no revolution ever showed up. I finally dumped him.

[Ifreann]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

That shit cracks me up, it truly does. We're all going up against the wall because the "eww, icky gheyz" crowd failed to come up with a legal argument better than the bullshit gay-haters spout right here in NSG over and over? Oh, hang on a second, let me switch to my looser fitting boots so I can shake in them more efficiently.

Clearly you're going to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

That's what my last boyfriend kept saying, only no revolution ever showed up. I finally dumped him.

I trust you made a point not to say 'the revolution came', because there's only so much filth you can have in one post before the thread just turns into thinly veiled porn.

[Muravyets]

Ah, but thanks to you, Ifreann, it was a wasted effort.

[Ifreann]

Ah, but thanks to you, Ifreann, it was a wasted effort.

My work here is done *vanishes in a cloud of lubricant*

[Farnhamia]

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why did you ignore this part?

Because it is inconvenient to his "argument".

The sheer depth of the hysteria in his posts does make one wonder what, exactly, he thinks is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry.

Activist judges will take over the country and force everyone to get gay marriages obviously...

Well, yes, that is the ultimate goal, but I can assure you that there is a government-run medication program in the plan that will make sure that you not only don't mind but like it.

Farn! You weren't supposed to tell about the new heterosexual rehabilitation program while it's still in beta testing! You know, it does no good to just SHOW UP to the Grand Meeting of Shadowy Leftist Conspirators if you're going to just play Bejeweled on your phone the whole time.

Ryadn, darling, I wrote the Homosexual Agenda. Besides, do you think they'll actually believe it?

uh... Yeah, I think they will.

Maybe, but the ones who do are effectively powerless. They're the ones at Tea Party rallies wearing hats festooned with tea bags, which were invented only in about 1910.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You know, if some of the posters in this thread even read Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I doubt it would change their opinion. At this point, if they read that the sky is blue, they'll thoroughly believe it is green.

[Allrule]

After this gets carried over to the Supreme Court, the decision on gay marriage will be final. It will be Gaynarok.

Next Stop: Beastiality! Oh yeah!!

Nice strawman.
In other news, bears shit in woods, and water is wet.

[Farnhamia]

You know, if some of the posters in this thread even read Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I doubt it would change their opinion. At this point, if they read that the sky is blue, they'll thoroughly believe it is green.

Unless Rush or one of his ilk approved blue. It is pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

[Mortonus]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

[Farnhamia]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

Do you think the decision was based only on the judge's being gay? Where is his bias evident, please, and do be specific?

I don't know how the docket is set for the court, but imagine it was his turn.

[DaWoad]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

oh and of course you'll be able to provide proof that the judge is bias. Of course, even that wouldn't change the fact that one judge wont be the final word on the matter. Nor do I find it stupid that the constitution can overrule the "people" in cases where the people vote to overrule basic human rights.

[Ifreann]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

Gods, you're right! If only there was some system where by one could appeal to a higher court if one felt a judge's decision was wrong!