Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Wondering wrote:

Feel better now? Usually an outburst of your own supidity seems, for some strange reason,to soothe you.

Yes, highlighting your stupidity tends to have that effect.

The justices dismissed each of the defendant's arguments as lacking in rational basis (the lowest level of judicial review).

As you pointed out, they did limit their findings to California in this instance, however the fact that they found the defendant's arguments to lack a rational basis could itself be the basis to raise similar action in other states.

Can you indicate why banning same sex marriage would be unconstitutional in California, but constitutional in any other state?

is seems your supidity[sic] often prevents you from seeing plain and simple facts.

Does anyone else find it funny that we haven't heard from Brian G since the day the ninth circuit released their decision, which dismissed arguments regarding procreation as irrelevant?
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ma/T86HJIL6M...

Im not a fan of gays but its not the governments job to tell people how to live their lives.Funny how theres no anti fake religion campaign, or anti magic pants campaign.Talk about big government

lides wrote:

Can you indicate why banning same sex marriage would be unconstitutional in California, but constitutional in any other state?

States regulate marriage, not federal judges. Can you indicate why the 9th circuit didn't claim that marriage is a fundamental right for same sex couples?

Can you indicate why the decision was split? I think it's because two of the judges knew less about the constitution than you do.

lides wrote:

Does anyone else find it funny that we haven't heard from Brian G since the day the ninth circuit released their decision, which dismissed arguments regarding procreation as irrelevant?
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ma/T86HJIL6M...

Most likely, he tired of your half-witted regurgitation.

Wondering wrote:

States regulate marriage, not federal judges.

But federal judges do have the authority to overturn the states when their regulation of marriage is in violation of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Wondering wrote:

Can you indicate why the 9th circuit didn't claim that marriage is a fundamental right for same sex couples?

If you had read the opinion, you would have realized that was a question they were not being asked, although they do indicate that if they had been, you would not have liked their answer.

Wondering wrote:

Can you indicate why the decision was split?

The dissenting judge did not feel that the discrimination inherent to the amendment rose to the level of that overturned by the Supremes' Romer decision.

Wondering wrote:

I think it's because two of the judges knew less about the constitution than you do.

And we all know that "thinking" is not one of your stronger suits. Sorry dear, but the majority opinion was that the amendment couldn't even pass the constitutional smell test, as there was nothing which even could be confused with a rational basis for the voters to do this to same sex couples in the state, a decision firmly grounded both in existing precedent AND the US Constitution. You're just pitching a hissy because you know that this ruling ends your wet dream of ending same sex marriage in your own state.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Garbage deleted.

You better scram before BIG BOSS MAN gets back or there'll be hell to pay!!!

Rick in Kansas wrote:

But federal judges do have the authority to overturn the states when their regulation of marriage is in violation of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Yes, it's called legislating from the bench. The constitution doesn't address marriage. As binding precedent, the Baker v Nelson decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Supreme Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case. This was not the 'precise issue.' Here the court was dealing with 'rights' that were given and then taken away. It is unique to California and meaningless to the rest of the country.

Wondering wrote:

States regulate marriage, not federal judges.

Correct, but states are beholden by the federal constitution to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The only instance in which they may breech such equal protection is if they can illustrate that doing so serves a compelling state interest. Neither you, nor the defenders of prop 8 have been able to indicate such a state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.

Your continual inability to do so shows the frailty of your reasoning, and the weak foundation of your argument.

Wondering wrote:

Can you indicate why the 9th circuit didn't claim that marriage is a fundamental right for same sex couples?

They didn't need to, that was not the question before the court. If they defendants are stupid enough to appeal, and they may just be, the Supreme Court could decide that issue, should they choose to do so.

Wondering wrote:

Can you indicate why the decision was split? I think it's because two of the judges knew less about the constitution than you do.

Wondering, once again you resort to obfuscation. The reality is that your position last in court... Again.

lides wrote:

The reality is that your position last in court...

Did you mean 'lost?' My position is that marriage shouldn't be redefined and DOMA should stay in force. I haven't lost anything yet. No same sex marriages are taking place in California today and the federal government doesn't recognize a same sex marriage regardless of where it took place.

lides wrote:

They didn't need to, that was not the question before the court. If they defendants are stupid enough to appeal, and they may just be, the Supreme Court could decide that issue, should they choose to do so.

Did you mean 'if the defendants?'
As I understand it, it's the gay side that wants to avoid the supreme court.

Wondering wrote:

Yes, it's called legislating from the bench.

Only by idiots.

Wondering wrote:

The constitution doesn't address marriage.

It doesn't have to, but yet the right of the individual to marry is still guaranteed by it.

Wondering wrote:

As binding precedent, the Baker v Nelson decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Supreme Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case. This was not the 'precise issue.' Here the court was dealing with 'rights' that were given and then taken away.

Wow, you got something right, a remarkable change of pace for you. As for Baker itself, the ONLY thing keeping it alive as precedent is the lack of a case before the Supremes to sign off on its death certificate. Now that there are states which recognize the right to marry as extending to same sex couples, the basis for the Court's summary dismissal of the appeal is no longer valid and the Courts will have to answer the question.

Wondering wrote:

It is unique to California and meaningless to the rest of the country.

Close but no cigar, once upheld, Perry will mean that those states which have marriage for same sex couples (such as your own) and those which will in the future, will find an obstacle standing as precedent in their way if there is a change of "mind" on the idea.

Wondering wrote:

Did you mean 'lost?' My position is that marriage shouldn't be redefined and DOMA should stay in force.

Your childlike grasp of reality is terribly amusing, but the fact remains that you are incapable of indicating anywhere in the constitution where the federal government is delegated the authority to regulate marriage that would make such a law constitutional.

The DOMA violates the 10th Amendment, and you have been incapable of making a rational argument to the contrary. It violates the right of the state's to regulate marriage, however if states have the authority to regulate marriage, then they must provide equal protection of the law for all persons within their jurisdiction to marry.

It's fun to watch you chase your tail claiming that states have the authority to regulate marriage, while at the same time arguing that the DOMA is constitutional. The two arguments are in direct conflict with each other, which is to say only one or the other may be true.

Are you capable of indicating where the US Constitution delegates the federal government the authority to regulate marriage that would make you look less foolish?

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Only by idiots.

We agree! They are idiots.

lides wrote:

It's fun to watch you chase your tail claiming that states have the authority to regulate marriage, while at the same time arguing that the DOMA is constitutional. The two arguments are in direct conflict with each other, which is to say only one or the other may be true.

Are they? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

Key words, Sparky:
"any State" and "within its jurisdiction"

Wondering wrote:

Are they? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."
Key words, Sparky:
"any State" and "within its jurisdiction"

Wow, you really aren't that bright, are you?

Did you notice that your most recent post in no way addresses the passage to which you elected to respond?

You edited out most of the post to which you were respond, making it read as follows:

Wondering wrote:

It's fun to watch you chase your tail claiming that states have the authority to regulate marriage, while at the same time arguing that the DOMA is constitutional. The two arguments are in direct conflict with each other, which is to say only one or the other may be true.

How does your response illustrate where the US Constitution delegates the power to regulate marriage to the United States, which would make the DOMA constitutional?

Writting "any State" and "within its jurisdiction"[sic] fails to make any point whatsoever. Save for perhaps to strengthen the notion that ALL persons within a state's jurisdiction, including homosexuals, are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

I think it is hysterical that you think you are intelligent.

Sparky, are you drunk? You wrote:

Wondering wrote:
It's fun to watch you chase your tail claiming that states have the authority to regulate marriage, while at the same time arguing that the DOMA is constitutional. The two arguments are in direct conflict with each other, which is to say only one or the other may be true.

News flash, you wrote that, I didn't.
Have you met the RoHo?

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it's called legislating from the bench. The constitution doesn't address marriage. As binding precedent, the Baker v Nelson decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Supreme Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case. This was not the 'precise issue.' Here the court was dealing with 'rights' that were given and then taken away. It is unique to California and meaningless to the rest of the country.

Meaningless?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You have GOT to be kidding me right? You're not aware of the racist term "spear chucker"? Really? Seriously?
<quoted text>
And you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman.
Oh, well.

I wasn't aware of the term until about 5 years ago, when I unwittingly used the phrase in another context as a substitution for "hoplites", and got ALL worked over on a very different forum. THe blistering heat singed my eyebrows. lol. They really didn't believe that I'd never heard the term as a racist perjorative.

There are holes in everyones' "education".

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't aware of the term until about 5 years ago, when I unwittingly used the phrase in another context as a substitution for "hoplites", and got ALL worked over on a very different forum. THe blistering heat singed my eyebrows. lol. They really didn't believe that I'd never heard the term as a racist perjorative.
There are holes in everyones' "education".

There are 304 'Charles Spears' in the US white pages and 5 'Chuck Spears.' The gentleman refers to himself as "Chuck Spears", a legitimate name. I think RoHo is overly sensitive and the biggest racist posting in this thread.