About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Actually, my argument is not a strawman. Your argument against the validity of the 14th amendment is that the southern states were forced to accept it, and thus the 3/4 of state legislatures required to pass it was never legally reached. So were the 13th and 15th amendments. If you have any consistency at all, I would expect you to argue that those two amendments as well don't have any validity. Oh, you did, actually.For your convenience, this is what you said in an earlier post:

quote:

---

It was a fake puppet government, created by the north. The amendments and laws passed between Presidents Lincoln and Hayes, are not representative of how the southern constituents were. If you cant see the BS then you re blind or you are not looking.

---

Notice the plural "amendments". The amendments passed by Johnson and Grant were the 13th, 14th, and 15th. Thus, the 13th, 14th, and 15th are not valid amendments to the constitution by your argument.A strawman is misrepresenting your opponents argument and then debunking it. I fail to see how pointing out that you should be opposed to the 13th and 15th amendments due to your opposition to the 14th is a strawman of your argument, especially given your plural use of "amendments". Unless that was a typo, in which case you are simply being inconsistent with your application of validity. The great thing about the internet is that you can generally find these famous historical documents. Here's the magna carta:
Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Now tell me, which clause garauntees the right to beae arms? You won't find it. You will find a clause on habeus corpus, though.However, up until the English Bill of Rights of 1689, bearing arms was actually required. Subjects had to buy weapons. This was seen as a duty, not a right. The EBoR says this:

quote:

---

That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law

---

So it is not a universal right, nor is it unalienable. Further, it is potentially restrictive--"as allowed by law", so parliament could very well declare that protestants could only buy swords, but not rifles. Further explanation of this right is that it is only for when society and law cannot detain oppression. And given the religious discrimination, it could be more accurate to call this a privilege of being a british citizen.It was really only with the American revolution that the right to bear arms was considered fundamental, universal, inalienable. Ah yes. You can speak freely, in parliament. This idea is connected to parliamentary privilege. That is, proceedings in the parliament cannot be questioned by any body outside of the parliament (thus excluding the courts). The american right to free speach is really quite different. It is, again, a universal freedom, something the EBoR did not recognize. There is a great differene from allowing a MP to speak freely within the legislative chamber and the tavernmaster in his tavern.Now then, the biggest difference between the EBoR and ECL, and the USBoR and constitution, is that the EBoR is granting rights to specific people (much like the magna carta, which really only applied to nobility). Further, these can be seen more properly in the light of being privileges, as the idea that all power emanated through the king was still around (the idea of the social contract was partially created as a method by which to justify deposing Charles I, and Hobbes, unlike Locke, thought that once created, the people did not have the right to depose the government, which would mean the EBoR is a gift of rights (privileges) to the people from the monarch). The US revolution and constitution turned this upside down. Power belonged to the people, and government was accorded rights and power from the people. The Bill of Rights then is further protection.Conincidentally, the Magna Carta is actually a good document to support what I was talking about. It is an affirmation of noble rights within the Kingdom of England and a restriction of the powers of the king. What this means is that prior to its adoption, the king did not exactly think that trial by jury of peers or habeus corpus were rights. True, Henry II did issue a few primitive writs and set up a primitive trail by jury system, but it is evident that the nobles who forced King John to sign the charter late into his realm considered these to be their rights. As they had not been formally tabulated, by your argument, any restriction of habeus corpus and trial by jury would not be the removal of a right, because the rights did not exist.The argument against your claim, that you cannot take away a right that never existed, still stands. It is better to assume that there are inumerable rights, not all of which have been thought of or discerned, and so any limitation on the collective power and rights of the people is dangerous and must be thought through very carefully (especially given our penchant for precedent). Further, you can take away rights that "never existed", as is clearly shown by laws of discrimination. Who would have thought that blacks and whites have a right to marry each other in the early 1800s? Hell, you would have thought that blacks had the right to vote? (yes, a few people did, but the laws generally don't show this).Edited by kuresu, : added paragraph on magna carta
edited difference between EBoR and US C & BoREdited by kuresu, : clarification of "strawman argument". added quote from earlier post. fixed some spelling errors.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

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?

Not damn straight at all. It is an issue between two people who are are not straight at all. I should say between two consenting adults.

Well, it seems that I* was right. This poll report:
http://news.yahoo.com/...81204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_pollHas some interesting numbers.

• 56% of people over 55 voted yes on prop 8
• 57% of all non-whites voted yes {30% of California}
• 85% of evangelicals
• 66% of protestants {33%}
• 60% of Roman Catholics {31%}
• 69% of those who did not attend college
• 63% of people making less than $40,000/year
• 61% of latinos {36%-some are counted in the "white" category}

Pulled from wiki on California Demographics. There was no information on percentages of people above 55, non-college attending, and <$40,000/year income.Here is a pdf from the poll's website showing the full breakdown:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_Prop8JTF.pdf.*I am not the one making the argument, but rather, agree with it, and am just reporting the data behind the conclusion that race was not the determining factor, but rather religion and age, and apparently income, were.

yes and no. I'll discuss with Kuresu and Subbie because they present themselves well on here, provide links, sources, and a clear position, you on the other hand are in the Rrhain category, of "it's not worth my time to respond to them" kind of poster. get your own ideas, stop copy and pasting things you read on msn/cnn, and then acting like Kuresu's and Subbie's puppy dog following their great posts with your lame chiming in on "yeah what have you got to say about what we are saying?" crap. They are asking great questions. you are are just chiming in.how about this, we just ignore each other.Kuresu and Subbie, I look forward to your future posts. I think we are really not arguing much on this one. I just wanted to say the the blacks who came in to vote for obama helped to pass prop 8. there are many key factors and this was one of them, you may have misunderstood me a little, and taken me a little out of context. I dont doubt religion was a big factor either, or age for that matter, but race was also a factor, and more blacks voted in this election than in previous ones. even your .PDF, that you so graciously linked, stated at the bottom of the second page in the race category that whites were 50-50 and non-whites were 57-43 in favor, while older people were 56-44 in favour (and although it's one point, it's still less of a factor than race was). I think the data doesn't refute either one of our positions. now you said age in the begining and now you are saying age, income and religion. so now im changing to race, religion and education. this is really a silly arguement for both of us to continue, but i will if you want to.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Kuresu and Subbie, I look forward to your future posts.

---

I've pretty much made my point. You said you'd have a response. If and when you say anything responsive to what I've said, I'll see if it merits further discussion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

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.

You have brought up a grand total of two sources (magna carta and EBoR) to support your claims. You have provided no links. You certainly haven't presented yourself with comport the whole time (the "history major", compspeak "to elite for you", and "quit acting like a five year old" jabs leap to mind).Isn't there something in the bible about not casting the first stone unless your slate is clean?

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

kinda like how i wish i had a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v. Vriginia as if it even applies to this at all.

---

You mean the declaration that marriage is a fundamental right in the Loving v. Virginia case has nothing to do with whether or not citizens can get married?Let's see how well you know the case: Can you quote the exact statement I'm referring to? No, don't look it up. That'd be cheating. We need to know how much you know about the case right now, not after you crib it. See, you seem to be arguing from a place of ignorance.OK, now that we've established that, go look it up. Please explain how marriage being a fundamental right as declared in the Loving v. Virginia case, how laws cannot be based upon sexual orientation as declared in the Lawrence v. Texas case, and how the Fourteenth Amendment don't add up to a fundamental right for gay people to get married to each other.Even Scalia says that the three of those necessarily require it. You have read the Lawrence v. Texas decision, yes? We're back to that arguing from a position of ignorance again.

quote:

---

the lovings were convicted of violating a law that stated only whites can marry whites, and challenged it. I dont even see how a case will be brought up against prop 8. the scenarios aren't even remotely close.

---

That's because you're conflating two issues.There is the federal guarantee regarding marriage and then there is the state issue of methodology regarding the process by which the amendment was passed.That is, the state case regarding Prop 8 as it currently stands has to do with whether or not the proposition is a simple amendment to the constitution which can be initiated via referendum or whether it is a revision which requires it to originate in the legislature and be passed by two-thirds of it before it goes to a vote.Whether or not it is an amendment or revision is independent of the fundamental right of gay people to marry. That is guaranteed by the US Constitution and if the challenge against Prop 8 fails, it might be overturned by the SCOTUS given the facts of Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and the Fourteenth Amendment.You will notice that Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas all overturned state laws (and in the case of Romer v. Evans, an amendment to Colorado's constitution) due to the fact that they violated the US Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees federal supremacy. It wouldn't be much of a right if the State is allowed to take it away.

quote:

---

So two homosexuals leave CA and go to Taxachussets and get married

---

Except they can't. Unlike mixed-sex couples, Massachusetts has decided to enforce the law requiring residency before allowing same-sex couples to marry. You have to live there a year first.

quote:

---

will they get arrested when they return to CA? no, thier marriage will just not be accepted.

---

Which, if there is a fundamental right to marriage, is a violation of Article IV, Section 1.Do you know what the options the Lovings were presented with when they came back from DC? No, of course not...you don't know the case. They were offered the chance to leave the state and never return, no jail time, no fine.The Loving v. Virginia decision found that to be unconstitutional.

quote:

---

its over folks.

---

So the Loving v. Virginia decision was a waste of time. After all, they could have simply left Virginia. "It's over folks," right?

quote:

---

Just so you know...the 14th amendment is BS.

---

Right...so the Loving v. Virginia decision was incorrect since it is based in the Fourteenth Amendment.

quote:

---

you will never hear me use it as a support for anything, because its wrong, and contrary to the original idea of what this country is.

---

Huh? Article IV, Section 2: Amendment Fourteen: Are you seriously claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment is anathema to Article IV, Section 2? How is it not a restatement and refinement of what was already declared in the main document?Be specific.

quote:

---

1. Its not up to SCOTUS.

---

So how did the SCOTUS manage to overturn the miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, the declaration of gay people to be strangers to the law in Romer v. Evans, the removal of laws based upon sexual orientation in Lawrence v. Texas? Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to the states?How do you reconcile that with Article IV, Section 2, since you apparently don't seem to think that the direct statement of such in the Fourteenth Amendment is valid.

quote:

---

2. cases are brought up to SCOTUS, not amendments to State constitutions

---

Then how did the SCOTUS overrule the Colorado constitution in Romer v. Evans?

quote:

---

3. California is not the only state that has an amendment like this.

---

So? Virginia wasn't the only state to have miscegenation laws.

quote:

---

4. The wording of Prop 8 is not discriminatory, it simply states what is. SCOTUS is going to have trouble pointing out discrimination where none exists

---

"The wording of the miscegenation laws was not discriminatory; they simply stated what was." So how on earth did the SCOTUS overturn them?Marriage is a fundamental right: Loving v. Virginia
Gay people cannot be made strangers to the law: Romer v. Evans
Laws cannot be based upon the sexual orientation of the person: Lawrence v. TexasHow, then, does a law that restricts marriage to heterosexuals be something other than discriminatory?You did read the IN RE decision, yes? The California constitution clearly defines restricting marriage only to mixed-sex couples to be discriminatory and a violation of the state constitution. How, then, does writing an amendment that enshrines that discriminatory policy not discriminatory?

quote:

---

5. SCOTUS needs to tread carefully when dealing with state constitutions, for contract of statehood reasons, SCOTUS realizes this, and will probably work to keep the union together.

---

Right, because the nation disintegrated in the wake of Loving v. Virginia, overturning the laws of the states with regard to marriage. The nation disintegrated in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, overturning the laws of the states with regard to criminalization of non-heterosexual sex. The nation disintegrated in the wake of Romer v. Evans when the SCOTUS invalidated an amendment to a state constitution.You do realize that Scalia is the most activist judge on the court. He has voted to overturn more laws than any other judge on the bench. How is it his actions have not completely ripped the country apart?

quote:

---

I think its hilarious Barack Obama got all these blacks to go out and vote, and then those same people were key in passing prop 8, the liberals totally F'ed themselves on that one.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While it is true that black voters voted for Prop 8 at around 70%, that is a raw fact and is meaningless outside of context.If the voter breakdown from Prop 22 in 2000 (the law that outlawed same-sex marriage that was overturned by the IN RE decision) were still present in 2008, then Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin than it did.Instead, Obama's presence on the ticket brought out a huge turnout and Prop 8 passed by a slimmer margin.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

Might Prop. 8 be reviewed by U.S. supreme court and be ruled unconstitutional?

---

Indeed, but that would require the case to get into the federal system. Everybody knows that once it does, it is going to go to the Supreme Court, so they are looking for the "perfect case."

quote:

---

and

​

Even Scalia has said that Lawrence v. Texas means that gay people have the right to get married.

---

As he said in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas: Those words may come back to bite him. Of course, Scalia will simply ignore his own logic since he really doesn't care about the Constitution and what it means. He is the most activist judge on the court.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick responds to me:

quote:

---

btw: I am not a homophobic bigot.

---

You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself based solely on their sexual orientation. That is the definition of "homophobic bigot."If you could explain how "separate but equal" is legitimate when applied to sexual orientation but is bogus when applied race, then you might be able to avoid the observation of denying to others that which you demand for yourself.

quote:

---

You must be hysterical.

---

(*chuckle*)I'm not going to have sex with you, Fosdick, so stop asking.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

It does no such thing it only clearly states what a marriage is in California.

---

Just like the laws in Virginia stated what a marriage was in Virginia, and yet the SCOTUS overturned it. How could that possibly happen?

quote:

---

You can’t really take a way something that wasn’t there in the 1st place.

---

Except the California Supreme Court had ruled the right was there. That was the entire point behind the IN RE decision. You did read it, did you not?

quote:

---

Yet in the same link it clearly states 70% of black voted for prop 8. are you fond of sources that contradict each other?

---

No. Are you fond of removing context? Raw numbers are meaningless without understanding where they came from.If the same voter breakdown that existed in 2000 when Prop 22 was passed (which was a law discriminating against gay people in their right to get married), then Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin.But instead, Obama brought out a huge turnout who were more likely to vote against Prop 8 and thus, it only passed by a slim margin.

quote:

---

If you understand anything about the reconstruction south you know that it was a mockery of liberty.

---

And yet, 150 years later, every state in the union has ratified it. It's possible they're all wrong, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument.

quote:

---

Prop 8 passed . let it go.

---

"The miscegenation laws passed...let it go."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, one of the judges who voted in the majority in Hardwick later said that he was wrong to do so. Should American citizens have just "let it go"?"Dred Scot passed...let it go."
"Plessy v. Ferguson passed...let it go."So those were good things and nobody should have complained?Great...so if we get 50%+1 of the electorate to vote to make you my slave, then you're not going to complain, right? "It passed...let it go."Show of hands: Who here votes to make Artemis Entreri my slave?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kuresu writes:

quote:

---

Oh, and if you're going to critique FO's grammar, check your own first. Internet is not plural.

---

Tell that to George Bush: Since then, "internets" has become a bit of a common thing to say, especially when someone is trying to make the other person look stupid.An extension of this is Senator Stevens (yes...that Senator Stevens) description of the internet: A common way of making fun of this is to call it the "intertubes."If you have installed Chrome, are on Windows XP, and have sspipes.scr installed, type in the following URL:about:internetsIt'll bring up the Pipes screen saver with a message of "Don't Clog the Tubes!" If you don't have the above setup, you'll get a blank screen with the message, "The Tubes are Clogged!"

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

not only a right but an unalienable right.

---

And as the SCOTUS declared in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right.Were they wrong to do so?Are fundamental rights only applicable to heterosexuals? Gay people aren't citizens?

quote:

---

gays can still get married the way polygamists do

---

What does polygamy have to do with anything? How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy while mixed-sex marriage does not? Considering that we've never had same-sex marriage and yet we've had polygamy for thousands of years, it would seem to be the other way around.

quote:

---

The Pedophiles, and the Polygamists are on your side now.

---

Why does the thought of same-sex marriage immediately make you think of raping all of your children? How does same-sex marriage lead to molestation of multiple children while mixed-sex marriage does not? We've never had same-sex marriage and yet entire families of children are raped all the time. It would seem that mixed-sex marriage leads to it.

quote:

---

marry who you want as many times as you want no matter what their age is. yeah freedom!

---

Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead to that while mixed-sex marriage doesn't?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

I just wanted to say the the blacks who came in to vote for obama helped to pass prop 8.

---

But this statement is naive and ignores the context.Again, if the same voter breakdown that existed in 2000 when Prop 22 passed were present in 2008, then Prop 8 would have passed by an even stronger margin.But, Obama brought out a strong voter population and Prop 8 won only by a slim margin.Therefore, Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

but race was also a factor

---

No, not really. Again, if the breakdown had been the same as it was back in 2000, Prop 8 would have passed by a higher margin than it did.Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

and more blacks voted in this election than in previous ones.

---

And since Prop 8 passed by a smaller margin than it would have were it not for the turnout Obama generated, the conclusion is actually that Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

quote:

---

now you said age in the begining and now you are saying age, income and religion.

---

(*sigh*)You do understand the concept of relative significance, yes? The most significant factor in Prop 8's passage was age. That doesn't mean no other factors were involved, but it does mean that age was the big one.Again, if 2008 were like 2000 when Prop 22 passed, Prop 8 would have passed by a stronger margin than it did. Obama's presence on the ticket was a detriment to Prop 8, not a boon.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.