About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Well... "we" don't have a democracy.You see, Fosdick, our Constitution is designed to protect its citizens from people like you. Majority doesn't rule in this Country. What we have...which is a Constitutional Republic.

Well...actually...sorry to burst your bubble there AE, but "no", that's not at all what the people of California exercised.You see, AE, there's this pesky ol' document referred to as The United States Constitution. And, as it turns out, that document supersedes individual State Constitutions. Do you get it now, AE?...that's what is meant by a Constitution Republic. But again, since it violates the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it really doesn't matter how the majority voted. The U.S. Constitution sets the "rules", so to speak...since we are (as you agreed) a Constitutional Republic.

You're correct, I do disagree with you...because you were, and still are, wrong. You original snarky response (here it is again in case you forgot it)was in regards to me telling Fosdick that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.You're wrong...as the citizens of California are not an individual Constitution Republic. Rather they are the citizens of a State within our Constitutional Republic. Get it now AE? And in our Constitutional Republic, even individual States have to abide by our U.S. Constitution. Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, so it matters not, what the voters of California did. How was what I said irrelevant? I explained to you what is meant by a Constitutional Republic. You seemed to have had (and likely still do) this notion that California is a Constitutional Republic and can do whatever the hell they please. You're wrong. Yeah...those unique "facts" kinda suck, don't they. Well...let's see now. Does the Federal Government bestow certain rights to those that are married? Why, yes, I do believe that they do. As such, States cannot enact Laws or Amend their State Constitutions in such a manner that they violate the U.S. Constitution. I'm sorry, my bad...I was thinking of the 14th Amendment (as pointed out by subbie), but I do want to add that I believe that the 9th amendment is applicable as well.And here's section 1 of the 14th Amendment...just so you know."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
(bold mine)
Now, your challenge is to explain to me how Prop 8 does not violate the 14th Amendment. And please, let's not see any of the typical nonsense about how gays can get married...just not to someone of the same sex, since we both know that that is not a valid response. Nor do we need to see anything stupid, like how people are going to want to marry their dogs or a tree, or other such nonsense, as again, we both know that none of these are valid responses. Just explain to me why/how you believe (if indeed you do) that prop 8 will withstand Constitutional scrutiny by SCOTUS.Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a sentence.

So rather than addressing the issue, you find it more productive to act like a five-year old?I admitted an error on my part, and originally referred to the 9th Amendment when I meant to refer to the 14th...and you call that "moving the goal posts"? Ha...you're quite the card there AE. Tell ya what, AE, let me know where you want me to send your nickle, cuz that's all you're asking for. Learn English. You probably answered your own question AE. However, since I'm neither homosexual nor a resident of California, I obviously cannot say with certainty how a case may be brought to SCOTUS, but I do see a likely scenario playing out as you mentioned. Granted, the couple will not be arrested upon their return, but since they will be denied rights that other married couples have, that might very well be the vehicle for a court challenge.In addition, I also want to point out that there is some talk about the prop not being "legal" in that the voters cannot, by a simply majority, amend the State Constitution. And please note AE, that the California Supreme Court has agreed to take up legal challenges to Prop 8.
Read more here: California Supreme Court Will Hear Prop 8 Legal Challenge - Fog City JournalFog City Journal. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! So is your argument. I mean, seriously, this is just so stupid that I really have no response. Well, these first three responses are nothing but avoidance of the issue.True...it is not up to SCOTUS...until, that is, a case is brought before them. And I realize that amendments are not brought to SCOTUS, cases are...but I don't really see how you can use this as an excuse to discriminate. When prop 8 is challenged, a case will be generated. And it's that case (or a similar case) that will likely be brought to SCOTUS. Why is that so difficult to imagine? And who gives a flying fuck that California is not the only State with amendments like prop 8? Of what consequence is that AE? Do you think that if more than one State has "prop 8 like" amendments, that suddenly SCOTUS is prevented from ever hearing a case brought before them regarding these discriminatory actions? If the implementation of the amendment denies rights to a certain group of people, then how is that not discriminatory? So, if I underatand your argument, you are basically saying that States can do whatever the fuck they want, because they are, after all, States...and SCOTUS will not take up any challenges to these States for fear that our beloved Union will crumble? Meaning, of course, that in this particular case, your defense of prop 8 is a fear that "The Union" will fall apart if gays are allowed to marry? Wow! Ah...but it wasn't a liberal thing. It was a combination of voter backlash, age and religion.And just so you know, eight years of listening to people like yourself whine and cry and blame all the Worlds troubles on liberals is getting old. Nobody falls for the shit anymore....let it go.On a related note, here's another question you can avoid answering? Do you feel that the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church should lose their tax free status because of all the money they spent trying to pass prop 8?

You said you wanted a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v Virginia. I offered you a nickle.
Now, if you had said you wished you'd get a nickle EACH time someone mentioned L v V, then I would not have made the offer. It's not my fault that you did not know the difference between the words "each" and "every"? But now you do. See, even you can learn something. And the irony of you not knowing what an irony is, is just sad. And what argument is that AE? That I feel such discrimination should not be allowed in this Country? That's a silly argument to you? But your response is stupid. It's almost the year 2009 and you're blabbing on about the Civil War and how the 14th Amendment to our Constitution is BS. Golly, if it were BS, dontcha think maybe...just maybe...someone would have noticed by now. But yet, as it turns out, SCOTUS has actually cited this "BS Amendment" in some of their decisions. How utterly bizarre that the fucking Supreme Court Justices themselves didn't recognise the (apparently little known fact) that 14th Amendment is actually BS. Stupid Supreme Court Justices. Well then, enlighten me as to what exactly it is you ARE trying to say. Let's see...what was it again that you said? If only there were some way to see again, what it was you said. Wait a minute...here it is(bold mine)
Heck, I thought I summarized your arguments pretty well. Please tell me where I am mistaken. Again....kind of a meaningless and childish response, dontcha think? We should just "let it go" why, exactly? You may like blatant, Government sanctioned discrimination in this Country, but I personally I find it both reprehensible and repugnant. To "let it go" as you state, goes against the very foundations on which this Country is based. Or is your "just let it go" mentality only applicable to things you like. Do you wish/feel that there should have been a "just let it go" attitude towards laws banning mixed race marriages? Should we have "just let that one go" too. How about slavery? Should we have "just let that go" as well. Or is it only things that discriminate against homosexuals that you're OK with? Yeah...well...except I do. Did you happen to notice where I admitted the error and corrected myself. Seriously AE, are you really so dense as to not recognise a simple error that has been corrected? And since it has been corrected, it really no longer is an error. And since it's no longer an error, then, as it turns out, I actually DO know which Amendment(s) I'm talking about. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yeah...well..except for the part where you didn't actually answer the questions. Other than that little tidbit...you nailed this one spot on there AE.So I'll ask again. On what grounds do you support Prop 8? Or to word it another way...how do you think prop 8 gets around the 14th Amendment. And simply stating that the 14th Amendment is actually BS does constitute a legitimate answer, since as we ALL fucking know that the 14th Amendment is not really BS, but an actual Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as ratified by all States that were in the Union as of 1868.So then, even if you, AE (in your infinite wisdom), consider the 14th Amendment to be BS, the actual Supreme Court Justices see it differently and may very well structure their decision(s) based on their interpretation(s) of this Amendment. Do yo get it now, AE? Unlike you, simply calling it BS and letting it go at that is not one of their options. And since it is they who will be deciding any case(s) brought before them, not you, I'd like to know how YOU think THEY will get around this Amendment. Point them out to me. Unlike you, I don't mind being corrected. I actually appreciate it when my errors are pointed out to me. It's how we learn things AE...try it sometime, you might find it enlightening.Edited by FliesOnly, : To correct my "ratification" error. See A.E. I admit to and correct my errors.

Just so we're clear on this...I did not correct a grammatical error on your part. Your sentence was grammatically correct...you simply used the wrong word. You asked for a nickle and I agreed to send one to you. Quit crying about it.So, now that that's out of the way, you ever going to address the actual issues raised by me and Kuresu?

Show me where I've cut and pasted ANYTHING whatsoever from msn/cnn.But then again, this all started when you addressed my comments to Fosdick way back in post 113...remember? Is this somehow or another suppose to make me feel bad? Look, if you don't have the balls to respond like an adult...if you don't have the guts to address the issues I've raised...then just admit as much. There's no need to make shit up just so you can thump your chest and act all tough. Simply admit that you have no legitimate response and let it go at that.I guess what I'm asking here, AE, is for you to support your rather dubious claim that I am cutting and pasting things from any web-site, and/or simply aping subbie and/or Kuresu. Can you support your claim? Yeah, whatever....but then, I've noticed that you haven't answered their "great" questions either. You're just too much fun to ignore.