Sore losers dance by whozit

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Sore losers dance

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 15:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6620
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"California has a right to self-govern."

You say that like the right in unlimited. It isn't. There ARE restrictions and limitations on what states can do. When a state passes a law in violation of the US Constitution the law can be ruled invalid by the US Supreme Court. It would be the issue of California, in it's 'right to self govern' instituted slavery, or made a separate pact with Mexico regarding the border.

Again, in case you need it repeated, that 'right' you keep waving around is not unlimited.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:53 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Actually, that was the point of the 1st Civil War.

The states felt they had a right to govern as they saw fit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 10:14 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Again, in case you need it repeated, that 'right' you keep waving around is not unlimited.

And in case you need it repeated, it fits in this case. I cited other cases above where states oversteped the federal constitution. This case is not one of those.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 11:31 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

not to belabor this, yet again, good god,

you say that in this case the state doesn't overstep its powers, but you don't explain why this particular circumstance is diffferent from the others. You just say it is, and then you hold up the 10th amendment as a reason why this particular law should be found valid.

It's hard to get further than this, to the heart of what's different about this case, when you refuse to tell us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 11:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Disagree all you want, but this will end up in a California court and I will be proven right. I'm sorry but this is just the way it is.

Actually you will be proven wrong. Sure, your analysis is correct in every way. Please don't expect Courts in California to agree. The only Court to get it wrong more then the California Supreme Court is the Fed Circuit Court of Appeals that includes California.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 11:41 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
It is a civil rights issue. Gay people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They are being treated differently. They are being denied the right to be married - something that is available to heterosexuals.

Actually they are being treated the same. Same sex marriage bans apply without regard to sexual orientation.

Now if straight people could marry same sex partners and gay folks were denied...then they'd have an issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 12:55 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Once again: To all 3 of you. California has a right to self-govern. End of story. You all act as though I have a horse in this race.

I don't. I don't care who lives with who. I don't care who marries who. If my defense of the 10th amendment is obtuse, I am sorry.

I cannot change true things nor will I agree to let 1 singular issue threaten the sovernty of states. To have things your way will force 50 states to define marrage in a singular way. 3 states will be happy. 30 or so wont care.

States like Oklahoma or Kansas will howl. That road leads to a unification war. Is that better? People who live in cities often have no idea how country-folk think or govern themselves. We are seen as "Clinging to our guns and our faiths"

Gorram it, If Mal was in this debate, he'd side with me.

Earlier, you asked for ONE EVENT that kept gays apart. I'd submit that Prop 8 in and of itself meets that criteria, in that it keeps them apart inasmuch as it keeps them from being married to one another.

You say you will not "agree to let 1 singular issue threaten the sovernty of states." This sounds, in context, and awful lot like the one single issue of slavery, which threatened the sovereignty of states some 150 years ago. Is it your position that slavery should have remained a states' rights issue, and that it would be fine if it were still legal in the South? After all, changing that meant that some states were happy, some were mad as hell, and some of the folk in smaller towns and more conservative areas howled. And yes, it did lead to a "unification war", and the nation as a whole seems better for it.

And yes, Mal might well side with you, but that wouldn't necessarily make him right. He's been wrong a time or seven, and it's usually Zoe's clear thinking that saves his ass and straightens him out. I'm not sure I'd hold Mal Reynolds up as a beacon of all that is right and true.

There are still large areas of this nation where mixed-race marriages are frowned upon, and even some where they might incite violence. That doesn't mean that those things are wrong, or that those areas should be able to outlaw mixed marriages.

Just my take on the matter.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 1:08 PM

SWISH

I've been given a new theory. (No, I wasn't bright enough to come up with this myself. Wish I had.)

To all you married men out there I say:

"That nice woman there is your girlfriend? Yeah, I said *girlfriend* - I don't care what name you may use. She's certainly not your wife. You see, my personal beliefs do not allow me to recognize marriage. She is your girlfriend. End of story."

To all you married women I say:

"You boyfriend's real nice. Husband you say? Whatever. I don't recognize that. My personal beliefs do not allow it. He is your boyfriend, not your husband. What - you have a problem with that? What's the big deal? What's in a word, after all? Get over it already!"

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/a_marriage_man
ifesto..._of_sorts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 1:09 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

It took us a long time to get to that Hero.

Sure, technically speaking, equal rights are not undermined by laws against gay marriage. But the very fact is that people went to the effort to get this law on the books, the fact is that its message to gay peple is "you are still not accepted by your country as what you are,", "you are not one of us, but feel free to find your own terms with which to associate the american dream."

The law is discriminatory, because its intention is discriminatory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 1:45 PM

SWISH

Has anyone else noted that Hero's logic shows his bias quite clearly? He sees only the legal right to marry same gender versus opposite gender. He seems completely incapable of recognizing the right to marry the one you love.

This is the right that is violated by Prop 8 - the right to marry the person you love, no matter who that person may be. Straight people have that right. Gay people do not. The injustice is obvious to all - except with those with a bias big enough to give them a big ole blind spot. Only certain kinds of love are allowed by those like Hero. Or does he just not understand that marriage is based in love, and not just in matching innies with outies?

(Are you "married" Hero? How's your girlfriend? No - not your wife. You're not allowed a wife. That special woman will always be your girlfriend and nothing more, cause it's not allowed by society. You have no choice in the matter. Tough cookies, boy.

How would that feel, Hero, to live in a world like that?)

Thank goodness, this particular prejudice is on the way out.

*waves goodbye to Hero*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 3:00 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Except its not prejudice nor is it on its "way out"...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2008 3:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah it is.

Never understood why anyone would care, still don't, but apparently folk do - just more nitpickin into the lives of other folk where they don't belong, just like always.

Unless I happen to be knockin boots with em, what care I what someone elses orientation and preferences are ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE