California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage
The Lone Weasel
right looks like:
http://practice.findlaw.com/law-practice-management-articles/00006/000452.html
In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state
Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be
interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form
a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or
heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each
statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-
sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation.
The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-
sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the
interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition
of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the
equal protection clause.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Bruce Foxton
> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> right looks like:
Now you can marry your boy friend, lard ass.
Happy now?
kuikahi
> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> right looks like:
>
>
> In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999
>
> In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state
> Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be
> interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form
> a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or
> heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
> couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each
> statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-
> sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation.
> The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-
> sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the
> interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition
> of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the
> equal protection clause.
>
> --
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The Lone Weasel
***** No problem..the homos and lesbos can marry...Doesn't bother
me...
Just abolish the California anti-gun laws...like allowing more CCW
permits
to any city like SF, Sac, etc...allow the return of the 50 bmg
rifle, any
legal NFA weapon to law-abiding citizens, etc...
Remember, the West was won with the Winchester lever action rifle,
and
if it wasn't for these early Western firearms...you wouldn't have your
liberalized California plus same-sex marriages!
The Lone Weasel
I'm not gay. All this does is apply the law equally to all CA
citizens. See Loving v. Virginia if you have a problem with the
concept of marriage rights, which are real natural rights, Pinhead.
> Happy now?
I usually am, thank you for asking.
Bruce Foxton
> On May 15, 4:59 pm, Bruce Foxton <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>
>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>>>right looks like:
>>
>>Now you can marry your boy friend, lard ass.
>
>
> I'm not gay.
Liar.
>>Happy now?
> I usually am, thank you for asking.
You are obese, gay, AND a stupid drunken retard!
Buck Mulligan
>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>right looks like:
Where is it mentioned in the Constitution?
Gray Ghost
news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Actually what happened is 4 unaccountable judges overturned a clear mandate
in 2000 where Californians voted 61-39 against the marriage between same sex
couples.
IOW if the logic of your argument cannot persuade people, just fall back on
activist judges to shove it down thier throat.
Frank
Bill Smith
Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
not.
Bill Smith
Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce
Gray Ghost
news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:08:51 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>The Lone Weasel <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>>> right looks like:
>>>
>>> http://practice.findlaw.com/law-practice-management-articles/00006/00045
>>> 2. html
If you accept the benefits of being married as conferred by the government
than you abide by thier rules to obtain the status. When a populace votes 61-
39 to keep it meaning what it has meant for 1000s of years I think you're
obliged to comply.
And don't discount the issue of faith. It may not meaning to you but it does
to many people and many people will be offended by this.
Aside from the fact that my dissent is on the grounds of 4 unaccountable
judges dismissing the "will of the people" as evidenced by a 61-39
referendum.
Judicial usurpation is my issue.
Frank
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > On May 15, 4:59 pm, Bruce Foxton <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
> >>The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >>>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> >>>right looks like:
>
> >>Now you can marry your boy friend, lard ass.
>
> > I'm not gay.
>
> Liar.
Gee Pinhead, I was married and divorced as a heterosexual. Dated
women and had sex with women, not men.
I also believe if Loving v. Virginia stands then you can't deny gay
and lesbians their right to marry, even if you call it civil union.
The right to marry someone you love and make a life with them with all
legal rights and privileges of other married folks - it's obviously a
true natural right.
Unlike having guns. We have a natural right to self-defense. We
don't have any natural right to Glocks.
But you seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, Kennyboy, not the
constitutional rights and natural rights concerned in this CSC
opinion.
Not that there's anything wrong about that. Maybe you could date a
few guys and see if you like it. You have an absolute natural right
to do so...
The Lone Weasel
> In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> >right looks like:
>
> Where is it mentioned in the Constitution?
Where is heterosexual or interracial marriage mentioned in the US
Constitution? It's not enumerated.
So we have to look to the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection under
the law; maybe the Ninth Amendment, unenumerated rights.
Just seems like a real natural right to me, that humans naturally
select the ones they want to live with, and that the law would treat
all citizens equally.
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9A9FDF9C7A31EWe...@216.196.97.142:
> The Lone Weasel <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>> right looks like:
>>
>> http://practice.findlaw.com/law-practice-management-articles/00006/000
>> 452. html
>>
>> In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999
>>
>> In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state
>> Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be
>> interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form
>> a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or
>> heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
>> couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each
>> statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to
>> opposite- sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that
>> designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of
>> opposite-sex and same- sex couples embodied in California's current
>> marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and
>> well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state
>> interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>> The Lone Weasel
>
> Actually what happened is 4 unaccountable judges overturned a clear
> mandate in 2000 where Californians voted 61-39 against the marriage
> between same sex couples.
>
> IOW if the logic of your argument cannot persuade people, just fall
> back on activist judges to shove it down thier throat.
>
> Frank
>
did anyone expect different from the California Supreme Court?
Considering many of their other rulings and their rate of overturns in
higher courts,it's par for the courts..I mean course.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Felix D.
"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
> not.
It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
Felix D.
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9FE4DA1B19DWe...@216.196.97.142...
> If you accept the benefits of being married as conferred by the government
> than you abide by thier rules to obtain the status. When a populace votes
> 61-
> 39 to keep it meaning what it has meant for 1000s of years I think you're
> obliged to comply.
>
> And don't discount the issue of faith. It may not meaning to you but it
> does
> to many people and many people will be offended by this.
>
> Aside from the fact that my dissent is on the grounds of 4 unaccountable
> judges dismissing the "will of the people" as evidenced by a 61-39
> referendum.
>
> Judicial usurpation is my issue.
I made this quite clear in all of my calls to my elected representatives.
Some fool started going on about they have more than a million signatures
and they're going to put this on the ballot next November and ... I pointed
out that this was already voted on and decisively so, and if you are going
to let this happen then why bother putting it to a vote if it's only going
to get the thumbs down from some judge somewhere down the line? In fact, if
we're going to let judges decide things, then why bother to hold elections,
and why would we need elected representatives - like, say, you?
The thing is, they all want to frame the issue as "for or against" gay
marriage. I was incensed and told them they just don't get it. I could care
less about gay marriage (I really don't) but I care a while lot about
elections having some kind of validity in a representative democracy like
we're supposed to have here.
Another moron asked me to write her a letter so she could craft legislation
for next year. I told her that was absurd, the election in question was
overturned this very morning and she should get right down to the capitol
and introduce 1) a motion to stay this ruling from taking effect 2) a motion
to recall those four judges, and 3) introduce an emergency bill that says
once the voters decide an issue, that's it.
This state ... <sheesh>
Felix D.
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b64e5b5-6769-4b3d...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Gee Pinhead, I was married and divorced as a heterosexual. Dated
> women and had sex with women, not men.
The poor damned things.
The Lone Weasel
> "Bill Smith" <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
Because that's the democratic process; you may recall that our federal
and state governments are representative forms of government based on
democratic principles.
I know people today who still say it's unnatural for whites and blacks
to intermarry, when I really can't think of anything more natural than
human beings marrying for love rather than the lightness or darkness
of our uniformly brown skin.
Same with same sex marriage. Some people are born with a genetic
predisposition to male-female sexual attraction, others to same sex
attraction, others may be sexually ambidexterous or asexual.
Would you prohibit the marriage of persons who don't want to have sex
but just be companions? Would you ban marriages based on wealth and
nothing else? Heterosexuals have great freedom to marry for whatever
reason they want, and enjoy all the privileges and rights and
immunities whether or not they love each other romantically. So
sexual attraction isn't even a requirement for heterosexual marriage,
is it Felix the Rat?
Now it's legal for a heterosexual to marry a homosexual, isn't it?
That's not illegal even though a homosexual is allowed to marry. You
have no problem with gays & lesbians being married, as long as it's a
gay man and a lesbian woman. Then if homosexuals marry other
homosexuals, just like heterosexuals marry other heterosexuals, they
deserve the same Constitutional right to equal protection under the
laws, and marriage brings lots of privileges, rights, and a special
legal status that protects individual and community property. Gays
and lesbians must share in those rights like everybody else.
Or the Constitution yet again just protects the rights of the majority
and ignores the rights of minorities.
PLMerite
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44b301ec-016d-40e9...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 11:36 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
>> "Bill Smith" <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> > Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>> > the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>> > not.
>>
>> It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>> proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>
> Because that's the democratic process; you may recall that our federal
> and state governments are representative forms of government based on
> democratic principles.
I thought the "democratic process" meant you got to vote on it. The people
of California voted down Gay Marriage.
Marriage exists as an institution to protect the status and rights of
children and to a lesser extent, their mothers. Adult couples who cannot
reproduce don't need the institution of "marriage." Some legally-binding
agreement is all that's required. The Left wants to call it "marriage"
because one of their goals is to tear down the family structure and
pretending "gays" can "marry" and be "family" is one way of doing so.
Gays aren't going to flock to California to wed one another, that would
interfere with their promiscuious lifestyle.
Are gay "marriages" going to be subject to the same standards as normal
marriages? Will one be able to accuse the other of adultery, will they have
to split community property when they "divorce," how about alimony to the
one who earns less?
Damn, that'd be a hoot. "What, you want us to act like we're really
*married*?"
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Felix D.
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44b301ec-016d-40e9...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 11:36 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
>> "Bill Smith" <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> > Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>> > the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>> > not.
>>
>> It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>> proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>
> Because that's the democratic process; you may recall that our federal
> and state governments are representative forms of government based on
> democratic principles.
Lee, this is a lot more basic than a question of prejudice; it strikes right
at the heart of whether the people actually have a voice in government or
not. More to the point, there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage,
gay or otherwise, so it seems that resistance to gay marriage is coming from
other, deeper springs.
My problem is I do not like a minority pressure group using the courts to
overturn the will of the people as stated in an up and down election.
Felix D.
"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:BJaXj.14263$0h.3579@trnddc02...
> Are gay "marriages" going to be subject to the same standards as normal
> marriages? Will one be able to accuse the other of adultery, will they
> have to split community property when they "divorce," how about alimony to
> the one who earns less?
>
> Damn, that'd be a hoot. "What, you want us to act like we're really
> *married*?"
This has already cropped up and it is an interesting problem for gay folks
who did get married. They're pioneering a whole new corpus of law about gay
divorce.
Bama Brian
Because they want the same legal rights as the male/female married
couples have. Without that gummint ruling, they're just living together
as far as the law is concerned.
To put it into perspective, when you went to college or first began
living on your own, did you have roommates? Did you think they should
share your health benefits or inherit your estate, should you die? Same
for the gays. Legalizing their union grants them full married rights.
I personally think that government has no biz telling people which forms
of marriage are acceptable. What is truly important about marriage is
providing a stable family environment, both for the marriage partners
and for any children involved. In this, I include financial
responsibility as well as emotional stability.
But I do think that getting married should be at least as difficult as
getting divorced. Especially for young folks, who don't yet know the
difference between infatuation/sex and love.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
That's exactly what the gays have achieved.
Jim Yanik
news:BJaXj.14263$0h.3579@trnddc02:
in Massachusetts,after gay "marriage" was legalized,there was an initial
surge of "marriages",but since then,it's almost negligible.
It really wasn't about "marriage",it was about advancing the homosexual
agenda.
Buck Mulligan
>On May 15, 8:09 pm, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>> >right looks like:
>>
>> Where is it mentioned in the Constitution?
>
>Where is heterosexual or interracial marriage mentioned in the US
>Constitution? It's not enumerated.
Thanks for admitting you're wrong- again, Jabba.
Bill Smith
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
A Constitutional amendment that confers upon the Government the
authority to say who may marry and who may not will be required. What
has happened, however, is that the people passed a law to limit the
rights of one segment of our society because they are offended. Does
this sound a trifle familiar, what with this being TPG and all? You
can't have it both ways. My ownership of guns offends some people no
end and they can pound sand for all I care.
Bill Smith
wrote:
Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
Bill Smith
Herb Martin
"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9i7r24l0uog3vafld...@4ax.com...
All people, any sex or any numbers should be able to enter into a
(civil) union which invokes all of both the responsibilities and rights
the states and federal government require and offer to married
couples.
Polygamy/Polygyny, male/male, female/female, heterosexual couples,
whatever as long as it is adults.
All rights AND responsibilites.
Jim Yanik
so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
standards?
Herb Martin
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA07C778B...@64.209.0.87...
No, they should not be able to set PURELY "moral" standards in
LAW.
Laws should prohibit the actual harm to someone, not someone's
(or even most people's) ideas about what is or is not proper,
moral, or ethical.
If a practice HARMS other people in specific ways, then the law
can make sense.
Bill Smith
>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>> not.
>>>
>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>
>>
>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>>
>
>so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
>standards?
If you regard laws against assault (which includes murder) and theft
as moral standards, sure, but marriage between consenting adults is
nobody's business but their own. I really don't care if you, or anyone
else, are offended or not, there is no right to be free from offense,
despite what the PC crowd would have you believe.
Bill Smith
Bruce Foxton
> so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
> standards?
I'm not Bill Smith, but I do believe that societies should NOT be able
to set and force something into law (or "standards" as you put it), it
simply doesn't understand... especially "moral" standards."
WHOSE "Morals", by the by?
Do YOU think that a "majority"(society) should be able to order you what
to own, what you can't own, who you can marry, and who you can't?
A simple yes or no is all that can be accepted for the above question.
Take firearms for instance.
Some sections of "society" are claiming that it's "immoral" to have
and own them.
Would you comply with said "society" because of its "morals"... even
though it's proven it doesn't harm others?
If so, then you are a hypocrite. :)
Many moons ago, it was "frowned upon" for two hetrosexual peoples to get
married if they were not of the same race...or religion!
Fortunately, I fall into the former, as I was born in the western
hemisphere, and she, the eastern.
Funny how my two older (But not wiser) brothers can't stand her, because
she is Asian... and smart!
But that's fine with me, as I don't give a crap what THEY think.(And
you should SEE the cows THEY married, and the tonnage they are to this
day! I mean, WOW! They are total "EARTH WOBBLERS".. like Fat-bot Lee
Harrison!
Also, I don't hang with Homosexuals(unlike Lee Harrison) so I don't give
a crap if he and his boyfriend gets hitched. After all, they can't
effect me, you, or anybody else.
Your "morals" seem to be "religion based" (correct me if I'm wrong), so
that means it displeasures me to a great extent, as I hate all
religions, and think all people that believe in that crap are very
mentaly unstable and weak.
However, I believe you have that right to believe in that stuff.
I will say in closing yet again, that "NO!"
Society should have no say in others "moral "STANDARDS"!
Take care of your own "standards" and "Morals", and live by them to your
fullest extent if you so desire.
Do NOT try to take care of others.
Herb Martin
> On 16 May 2008 16:14:08 GMT, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com:
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>
>>so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
>>standards?
>
> If you regard laws against assault (which includes murder) and theft
> as moral standards, sure, but marriage between consenting adults is
> nobody's business but their own. I really don't care if you, or anyone
> else, are offended or not, there is no right to be free from offense,
> despite what the PC crowd would have you believe.
Correct.
In my (earlier) response I used the term "purely moral" to distinguish
those beliefs from actions which HARM OTHERS in some specific
way which may or may not fit into any particular moral scheme.
Many people might find it "moral" to engage in "Feuds" to "even the
score" while others would find it "immoral" to fail to genuflect in the
precisely proscribed way in some particular church.
Morality is NOT to be enforced by the law -- certainly not the
PURELY moral as opposed to those acts which are immoral
because they HARM OTHERS.
Most people can agree that harming others is immoral but what
makes these actions illegal is the specific harm done to another
human being.
Felix D.
And they're being fought by people who think government can be used to shove
an agenda down the throats of people who have voted the idea down by a wide
majority. The "government" arena is where the battleground is.
RD (The Sandman)
news:482dba09$0$12887$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Exactly. Good analysis.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
James Beck
quan...@newsguy.com says...
Ah, but these people feel they have the will/word of 'god' to back up
their prejudice and hatred. Look at the number of these tolerant and
loving people that have disowned a son or daughter just because of their
sexual orientation.
I think they LIKE to forget that this country is not the exclusive
domain of a particular race or religion.
Jim
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:44b301ec-016d-40e9...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 15, 11:36 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
> >> "Bill Smith" <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
> >> > the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
> >> > not.
>
> >> It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
> >> proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>
> > Because that's the democratic process; you may recall that our federal
> > and state governments are representative forms of government based on
> > democratic principles.
>
> I thought the "democratic process" meant you got to vote on it. The people
> of California voted down Gay Marriage.
You really can't handle the concept of "a representative form of
government based on democratic principles", eh PMS?
> Marriage exists as an institution to protect the status and rights of
> children and to a lesser extent, their mothers. Adult couples who cannot
> reproduce don't need the institution of "marriage."
Sounds like you have a purely religious concept of marriage, which
explains your half-assed attempt to exclude gays & lesbians.
Okay, let's say gay couples adopt children and lesbian couples are
artificially inseminated. They have children, so they must be allowed
to marry, right?
In fact, bearing children isn't the main reason for getting married.
Lots of same-sex and opposite-sex and non-sexual couples get married
for financial security, for companionship and maybe just because they
love each other very much but don't want children.
So you're saying all these folks can't legally get married? I think
you're way off - in fact lots of people I've known have had good
stable marriages for years if not for life, without having any
children. And we really don't need more children in the world until
we're willing to care for the ones already here, do we PMS?
So marriage has to apply to everybody or all "marriages" under civil
law must be called "civil unions" or something similar, and whoever
has a civil union can call it whatever they like.
I think that's the best solution to this stupid problem. If
"marriage" is basically a religious term, then remove that term from
legal unions under state law. Call them "civil unions", which they
are if legalized, and let the partners call their union whatever the
fuck they want to call it.
> Some legally-binding
> agreement is all that's required. The Left wants to call it "marriage"
> because one of their goals is to tear down the family structure and
> pretending "gays" can "marry" and be "family" is one way of doing so.
Just call all legal marriages "civil unions". Take religion out of
the process altogether, let the individual churches throw a party or
dunk the couples in a lake, whatever they want, and call the union
whatever they want.
Let "marriage" be like the word "love", it means whatever you want it
to mean in the context of your lived relationship. Then nobody
suffers any stigma, anybody can enjoy all the rights and privileges
and responsibilities and duties of the job. Let people do what they
want in their committed relationships and fuck the preachers and the
wingnuts and the other ideologically afflicted loons.
> Gays aren't going to flock to California to wed one another, that would
> interfere with their promiscuious lifestyle.
Homosexuals are no more promiscuous than anybody else. Although
rightwing freaks tend to be more promiscuous than salmon in heat.
> Are gay "marriages" going to be subject to the same standards as normal
> marriages? Will one be able to accuse the other of adultery, will they have
> to split community property when they "divorce," how about alimony to the
> one who earns less?
>
> Damn, that'd be a hoot. "What, you want us to act like we're really
> *married*?"
Yeah, like when Nootie was fucking around on his wife then demanded a
divorce as she lay in a hospital bed fighting cancer. Your rightwing
heroes are all fakes, PMS.
My solution to the gay marriage issue is the best I've heard yet.
The Lone Weasel
> >news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
> >> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
> >> not.
>
> > It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
> > proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>
> Because they want the same legal rights as the male/female married
> couples have.
I think they already have that in California under the term "domestic
partnership".
"...the legal issue we must resolve is
not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the
California
Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex
couples while
denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official
relationship
with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but
rather whether our
state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory
scheme in which
both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter
into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the
significant legal
rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with
the institution
of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is
officially
designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is
officially
designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is
whether,
under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official
relationship of
same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."
California Supreme Court. In Re: Marriage Cases
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/inremrg51508opn.pdf
> Without that gummint ruling, they're just living together
> as far as the law is concerned.
And your attitude is exactly why denying the legal term "marriage" is
a big problem. I think a simple and constitutionally progressive
solution would be to remove the term "marriage" from all unions
legalized under state law and call them all "civil unions", then let
the churches call them whatever they want and the gays and the
lesbians and the unions of "mere" conveniance or companionship or
financial security decide what they want their committed relationship
to be called.
Even if I did spend most of my marriage cleaning horse stalls I
wouldn't call it horseshit. I'm sure other folks can think of
something appropriate to call their experiments in committed
relationships.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone & Happy Weasel
The Lone Weasel
> To put it into perspective, when you went to college or first began
> living on your own, did you have roommates? Did you think they should
> share your health benefits or inherit your estate, should you die? Same
> for the gays. Legalizing their union grants them full married rights.
Not necessarily. You could have contracts that remain in effect for a
certain period of time and then became automatically null and void, or
contain a provision for revision of the contract. You could insert
partition rules into the contract. You could also set up provisions
for raising any children concieved during the contract, or for use of
contraceptives or abortions.
So your relationship could be committed and time-limited. And you
wouldn't have to stay "married" for life; and that would greatly
reduce the number of divorces especially messy ones with several kids
distraught and a single mom working her ass off to support the kids
while the father runs off with another partner. And today while the
father of a child is legally bound to provide financial support for
that child for 18 or more years, under a contracted civil union the
use of contraceptives could be legally enforced and violations could
result in penalties. I think it would be easier to manage these often
time-limited if somewhat committed relationships, which it seems to me
nearly all relationships are whether the persons involved know it or
not.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Topp@Work
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> right looks like:
Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
Not a Right...
Bill Smith
wrote:
>
>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>> not.
>>>
>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>
>>
>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>
>And they're being fought by people who think government can be used to shove
>an agenda down the throats of people who have voted the idea down by a wide
>majority. The "government" arena is where the battleground is.
>
You don't get it. The Government has no authority to say who may marry
and who may not. That is what the court decided.
Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
Bill Smith
Bruce Foxton
> On May 16, 5:12 am, Bama Brian <eddyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Felix D. wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Smith" <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>>the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>>not.
>>
>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>
>>Because they want the same legal rights as the male/female married
>>couples have.
>
>
> I think they already have that in California under the term "domestic
> partnership".
Lee? You have the right to be a fat faggot.. even in Texas!
You don't have to make more lies about how you were "once married" to a
silly person of the opposite sex... had/have owned guns legaly... and
are a model citizen.
We KNOW what you are now!
PLMerite
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:53:09 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
> You don't get it. The Government has no authority to say who may marry
> and who may not. That is what the court decided.
Last time I checked the courts were part of the government.
> Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
> mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
Happens all the time. The gov't can seize your property, put you in jail
and execute you because you broke one of their rules, whether or not you
agreed to abide by them.
> Bill Smith
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Do you think that we want those laws to be observed?
We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent
men. The only power the government has is the power to
crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't
enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for
men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
PLMerite
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:482da33e$0$12961$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> All people, any sex or any numbers should be able to enter into a
> (civil) union which invokes all of both the responsibilities and rights
> the states and federal government require and offer to married
> couples.
>
> Polygamy/Polygyny, male/male, female/female, heterosexual couples,
> whatever as long as it is adults.
>
> All rights AND responsibilites.
I don't care what people do as long as no innocents get hurt, it doesn't
interfere with me and they don't expect me to pay for it in any way.
But that isn't the plan, of course.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"If you rub it in both at home and abroad that you are ready for instant
war... and intend to be first in and hit your enemy in the belly and kick
him when he is down and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any)... and
torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you."
Vice Admiral Sir John Fisher, Royal Navy, 1898.
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> > right looks like:
>
> Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
> Not a Right...
[begin excerpt]
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v.
Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v.
Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications
embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's
citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to
marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,
a person of another race resides with the individual and
cannot be infringed by the State.
Chief Justice Warren, Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
[end excerpt]
Call it a liberty or a freedom, that'll satisfy your idiotically
narowed gunloon lexicon.
Marriages as well as civil unions grant rights and privileges and
impose responsibilities and duties to the persons involved. The issue
is really just the term "marriage". Well fuck the terminology. Just
call all legal marriages "civil unions" and get religion out of the
civil and legal aspect
[begin excerpt]
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle
him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,
saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of
God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not
the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute
unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye
hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the
things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and
went their way.
King James Bible, Matthew XXII:15-22
[end excerpt]
According to this Jesus character the law has at least two aspects -
civil law and divine law. Jesus says give the civil law its due and
give your religious beliefs or your philosophical understanding its
own due credit.
So why can't you religious kooks just listen to Jesus and let the
homosexuals get married, or alternatively reserve the term "marriage"
to religious ceremonies or common usage and everybody refer to their
legalized committed relationships as civil unions?
I think Jesus makes a good point here. Don't you have any ears on
your feeble heads?
"Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not
remember?"
King James Bible, Mark VIII:18
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
>> mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
>
>
> Happens all the time. The gov't can seize your property, put you in jail
> and execute you because you broke one of their rules, whether or not you
> agreed to abide by them.
Would you complain if they did so or just accept it as the will of the
government? What if the government told YOU who you could marry?
There were laws within my lifetime that did exactly that in certain states, say
if I were to have the audacity to marry someone not of my race; it was off to
jail with me. The civil rights movement did away with such laws. I see this as
an extention of that effort.
It seems to me that people are perfectly willing to allow all kinds of
restrictive laws, as long as it isn't *their* ox that is being gored. Then they
scream.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Bruce Foxton
Not at all correct, Todd.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage
Sure it can be "god blessed", but not a thing that is designed by silly
gods or "OK'd" by religions.
My wife and I were married,(as was our right) and WE DEMANDED that all
"religious" crap be kept the hell out of our LEAGAL UNION as Husband and
Wife.
Our RIGHT to be married was done at my Mom's house, and we had the local
Judge come out to say: "Yo, you two wanna fuck?"
Wife and I: "We do! and will, A LOT!"
Judge: "Have at it! I now pronounce you two horny bastards as Husband
and Wife. So shall it be said.. so let it be done. Let's eat!"
Topp@Work
> On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
...
> >
> > > Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> > > right looks like:
> >
> > Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
So prior to civilization, mankind had a right to marry?
I think not....
We had a right to self defense, Right to procreate, but marriage came from
culture and religion.
Topp@Work
"Bruce Foxton" <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote in message
news:482de2ea$0$15192$607e...@cv.net...
> Topp@Work wrote:
>
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> >>right looks like:
> >
> >
> > Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
> > Not a Right...
>
> Not at all correct, Todd.
Se my response to weaser....
Bill Smith
<stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>
>"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>news:482da33e$0$12961$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>
>>
>> All people, any sex or any numbers should be able to enter into a
>> (civil) union which invokes all of both the responsibilities and rights
>> the states and federal government require and offer to married
>> couples.
>>
>> Polygamy/Polygyny, male/male, female/female, heterosexual couples,
>> whatever as long as it is adults.
>>
>> All rights AND responsibilites.
>
>
>I don't care what people do as long as no innocents get hurt, it doesn't
>interfere with me and they don't expect me to pay for it in any way.
>
>But that isn't the plan, of course.
>
>
>Regards, PLMerite
Here we go. What's the plan?
Bill Smith
Bruce Foxton
No need to.
MARRIAGE is a "right" that two people have, and it has nothing to do
with religion.
Bruce Foxton
> "The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> ...
>
>>>>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>>>>right looks like:
>>>
>>>Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>
>
> So prior to civilization, mankind had a right to marry?
> I think not....
That's why you don't think well. :)
> We had a right to self defense, Right to procreate, but marriage came from
> culture and religion.
So why did you get married, if you claim you didn't have the right?
WHY you got married is a different thing than having the right to get
married for tax reasons!
"Marriage" is simply nothing more than a LEGAL binding between two
partners that agree that they won't fuck each other up, by screwing others.
Topp@Work
"Bruce Foxton" <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote in message
And there you have it "LEGAL binding"
I was not born with the right to marriage....because no such right exists.
James Beck
Modern marriage, from the state's point of view, is just the legal
merger of two citizens into a single legal entity. A religious ceremony
MAY be part of the legal proceeding, but there are prescribed things
that must be done for it to be legally binding and there is nothing
religious about it. My wife and I had a non-religious ceremony and the
state required parts took less than 3 minutes to get through. Including
the signing of the documents. All the hoopla that goes on at a
religious ceremony is just window dressing for the guests.
Jim
James Beck
topp...@comcast.net says...
Weren't you born with the right to enter into legal contracts with
whomever you wish?
Jim
Topp@Work
"Bruce Foxton" <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote in message
Marriage by Church came before Marriage Permits by the government...
Prior to that, Marriage was most likely accepted by the tribe/group of
people
Prior to that, we were animals on the savanah....I don't see any of the
antelopes married,do you??
And right from your Reference:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc.
SOCIAL INSTITUTION.....
Not RIGHT
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married;
The STATE, CONDITION, or RELATIONSHIP
Not RIGHT
Topp@Work
"Bruce Foxton" <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote in message
BTW- if it's now a RIGHT, I can sue a woman who says no for denying me my
"Right"....
Felix D.
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:53:09 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>
>>And they're being fought by people who think government can be used to
>>shove
>>an agenda down the throats of people who have voted the idea down by a
>>wide
>>majority. The "government" arena is where the battleground is.
>>
> You don't get it. The Government has no authority to say who may marry
> and who may not. That is what the court decided.
It didn't say that government could marry them, either. It did say that no
matter what the results of any future election, you can count on it being
undone by any four unelected, unaccountable men wearing black robes.
>
> Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
> mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
Please take a moment and reflect on taxation and what that implies. Alameda
County passed a law saying I have to give $6.00 a year to light East
Regional Park trails at night. If I don't pay that six bucks, the
government will come with armed men, evict me from my home, throw me in
jail, seize my assets, and sell my house - and all for just six bucks. And,
even if I do pay that six bucks, government can still come with armed men,
evict me from my home, and sell my house if they can get more tax revenue
from some big time developer.
Now - what were you saying about rights and laws?
Wayne
including heterosexual unions. Everybody goes down to the court house and
picks up a "civil union license" instead of a "marriage license". That
allows the term marriage to remain at the original definition. I don't care
how anybody pairs off; I'm just tired of politically correct crap.
Marriage is between a male and a female. Denying that is denying the
obvious physical evidence of anatomy.
Bill Smith
wrote:
Unconstitutional laws can be thrown out by the courts, that's the way
it works, and the way it's supposed to work. Do you want to change
that? If you want to outlaw gay marriage it will require an amendment
of the US Constitution. What a good idea, lets enshrine bigotry in
our most sacred document.
Please give me an example of how those of us who are not gay, like you
and I, would be affected by the right of gays to marry.
>> Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
>> mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
>
>Please take a moment and reflect on taxation and what that implies. Alameda
>County passed a law saying I have to give $6.00 a year to light East
>Regional Park trails at night. If I don't pay that six bucks, the
>government will come with armed men, evict me from my home, throw me in
>jail, seize my assets, and sell my house - and all for just six bucks. And,
>even if I do pay that six bucks, government can still come with armed men,
>evict me from my home, and sell my house if they can get more tax revenue
>from some big time developer.
>
>Now - what were you saying about rights and laws?
>
Here's an example of the courts ignoring the Constitution and being
what you called "activist Judges", that's not what occured in the CA
State Supreme court.
Bill Smith
FWIW, I'm paying that six bucks too.
RD (The Sandman)
> Topp@Work wrote:
>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>>>On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegrou
>> ps.com ...
>>
>>>>>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real
>>>>>constitutional right looks like:
>>>>
>>>>Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>>
>>
>> So prior to civilization, mankind had a right to marry?
>> I think not....
>
> That's why you don't think well. :)
>
>
>> We had a right to self defense, Right to procreate, but marriage came
>> from culture and religion.
>
> So why did you get married, if you claim you didn't have the right?
I would assume that he got married sometime after civilization was
formed. He's not as old as I am. ;)
> WHY you got married is a different thing than having the right to get
> married for tax reasons!
>
>
> "Marriage" is simply nothing more than a LEGAL binding between two
> partners that agree that they won't fuck each other up, by screwing
> others.
Marriage is a social construct based on beliefs much like Sunday blue
laws. What you are describing is a social union and I doubt that many
in here have any problem with gays having those. It's when the word
"marriage" sneaks in that some come unglued.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.2297c386c...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
> In article <482df62c$0$11619$607e...@cv.net>, The...@Bass.gov.
> says...
>> Topp@Work wrote:
>>
>> > "The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> > om...
>> >
>> >>On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >
>> > messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegr
>> > oups.com ...
If what you say is true, then why is there all this fuss when both
partners have the same genitals?
Benj
> Now it's legal for a heterosexual to marry a homosexual, isn't it?
> That's not illegal even though a homosexual is allowed to marry. You
> have no problem with gays & lesbians being married, as long as it's a
> gay man and a lesbian woman. Then if homosexuals marry other
> homosexuals, just like heterosexuals marry other heterosexuals, they
> deserve the same Constitutional right to equal protection under the
> laws, and marriage brings lots of privileges, rights, and a special
> legal status that protects individual and community property. Gays
> and lesbians must share in those rights like everybody else.
>
> Or the Constitution yet again just protects the rights of the majority
> and ignores the rights of minorities.
You are absolutely RIGHT once again, Weasel! The constitution isn't
just to protect the rights of the majority and California is again
leading the way to a more liberal interpretation of rights! I'd say
the problem with the California law is that it clearly doesn't go FAR
ENOUGH! What about YOUR rights, Weasel? You aren't gay, yet since
we've now defined a much broader scope of marriage, your particular
desires can also be accommodated. For example: Now that we've
extablished that marriage does not just mean between a union between a
man and a woman, we need to define the boundaries better. Even in the
case of a man and a woman, it's clear that to protect the rights of
minorities the concept of "marriage" needs to be expanded!
Look at down in Texas the way "marriage rights" are being trampled on
by splitting up families! Who are WE to say that a marriage needs to
be between between a man and JUST ONE woman? Hey, it's already a
threesome with the gummint in bed with the man and woman right now!
So why not a man and three women, or a dozen women or even hundreds?
Don't polygamists as a minority have rights too? And who is the state
to set preconditions such as age for marriage? Why shouldn't some 60
year old geezer be allowed to marry a nice nubile 14 year old, or 10
year old or hey even a 6 year old? Don't THESE PEOPLE have "marriage
rights" too? I KNOW you are agreeing with me here, Weasel!
But even that clearly doesn't go far enough. If a marriage can be
between an old man and a young woman, then California law clearly
extablishes that it can equally be NAMBLA-defined to be between an old
man and a young boy! These lovers are part of the nation's minority,
are they not? I know you agree that "child-molesting" Catholic
priests should have a right to "marry" the same as anybody else! Come
on! It's a SLANDER to accuse those who simply have a sexual preference
for young boys of being perverts! It's simply a matter of SEXUAL
PREFERENCE is it not?
And have no fear Weasel, I'm working up to your particular situation.
California has clearly expanded to definition of what constitutes a
marriage to the point that having the camel's nose under the tent we
can see that gay and lesbian marriage is nothing but a "good first
step"! If we can broaden the limits of what makes a marriage to go
beyond they usual baby-raising man and woman (after all it is progeny
that is the basic reason for special conditions in a marriage) to
grouping where reproduction is no longer a factor such as two men, two
women, or old men and prepubescent children, then clearly we can go
the full route to total "open" marriage!
In short, Weasel, once the California principles are properly expanded
so they protect the rights of ALL "minorities" out there...
Finally, Weasel, you and your dog can finally "tie the knot"! I hear
that sheep make excellent marriage partners as well! Don't take my
word for it, Weasel, just ask any of your Kalifornia friends living
with you there in your Kalifornia expatriate community. I KNOW they
all agree with you and me on this!
For once, Weasel I finally see your point! May God bless you and your
joyous union!
Jim Yanik
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:53:09 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal)
>>>>> empowers the government with the authority to say who may marry
>>>>> and who may not.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are
>>>>the proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their
>>>>ends?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>
>>And they're being fought by people who think government can be used to
>>shove an agenda down the throats of people who have voted the idea
>>down by a wide majority. The "government" arena is where the
>>battleground is.
>>
> You don't get it. The Government has no authority to say who may marry
> and who may not. That is what the court decided.
No it's not. they decided to redefine the term "marriage".
(that has always been only between a man and a woman.)
(even though those benefits had been provided to homos by "civil unions")
Society voted overwhelmingly to confer certain benefits to
married,heterosexual couples,and the Court exceeded their power.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Mr. Albritton
Felix D.
> Please give me an example of how those of us who are not gay, like you
> and I, would be affected by the right of gays to marry.
You seem to think the issue is gay marriage or that I somehow give one rat's
shit who marries whom.
At what point do we say the people are sovereign? When do we say their
decisions stand? They either do or they don't, good or bad. This ruling
affected something decided by the people at large, not some crackpot law
dreamed up by a state legislator eager to make a name for himself.
Gray Ghost
>>
>> I thought the "democratic process" meant you got to vote on it. The
>> people of California voted down Gay Marriage.
>
> You really can't handle the concept of "a representative form of
> government based on democratic principles", eh PMS?
>
And what part of a 61-39 vote in a referendum against conferring the same
legalities to same sex couples as is conferred to opposite sex marriages with
children is not represntative of the will of the people?
Or is it just it didn't fo your way. Go ahead and come up with any convoluted
argument defending the judges, you'll be eating those words when the SA case
goes against your position.
I guess it really only depends on whose ox is getting gored, not about any
sound legal or moral principles.
Frank
Gray Ghost
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AA07C778B...@64.209.0.87...
>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>
>> so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
>> standards?
>
> No, they should not be able to set PURELY "moral" standards in
> LAW.
>
> Laws should prohibit the actual harm to someone, not someone's
> (or even most people's) ideas about what is or is not proper,
> moral, or ethical.
>
> If a practice HARMS other people in specific ways, then the law
> can make sense.
>
>
I would like to point out that noone has a right to be married. You can't
just go out and insist that some marry you otherwise your rights are
violated.
Marriage is a voluntary arrangement entered into in the main for specific
reasons, meaning to raise a family. Society for a very long time has
acknowledged that the family is the basic unit of society. Groups of families
are communities, groups of communities are towns, than counties, than states.
It has been pretty well established over the centuries that it works. The
fact that some malcontents who want to be different can't be accomdateted
does not automatically make marriage wrong or require that people who entered
into it change the definition just to satisfy others hurt feelings or throw
away centuries of a well demonstrated institution.
Frank
Gray Ghost
> On 16 May 2008 16:14:08 GMT, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are the
>>>>proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>
>>so,you believe that a society should not be able to set -any- moral
>>standards?
>
> If you regard laws against assault (which includes murder) and theft
> as moral standards, sure, but marriage between consenting adults is
> nobody's business but their own. I really don't care if you, or anyone
> else, are offended or not, there is no right to be free from offense,
> despite what the PC crowd would have you believe.
>
Not exactly. Surely anyone has the right to be with anyone they want to be so
long as it's mutual. But marriage is a specific legal state established for
particular reasons. If one wants to take advantage of it than follow the
requirements.
I fear that much more is at stake here.
Frank
Gray Ghost
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:53:09 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:et7r2458580tl3nng...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:22 -0700, "Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't (of course) but the more appropriate question is: why are
>>>>the proponents of gay marriage using government to attain their ends?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, some people are trying to use the Government to
>>> oppose gay marriage when it is none of their business.
>>
>>And they're being fought by people who think government can be used to
>>shove an agenda down the throats of people who have voted the idea down
>>by a wide majority. The "government" arena is where the battleground is.
>>
> You don't get it. The Government has no authority to say who may marry
> and who may not. That is what the court decided.
How you figure? Marriage is a legal institution that confers certain benefits
(tax breaks - theoretically, legal protection of partners from harm, ie a
spouse may not simply walk away from thier obligations entered into as a
couple, etc protection for the offspring and places restrictions with
peanlties on behaviors likely to damage that union, ie adultery. Since they
are establishing the rules they can certainly make those they want. As far as
race or religion go, so long as it's man-woman it should be irrelelvant since
the pairing can produce offspring since that is the definition. Same sex
couples cannot not marry because they cannot produce children, which is at
the base of the concept. Man/woman couples who will not or cannot have
choldren are covered necause intheory they could and therfore fit the
definition.
I don't really care what homosexulas do in the provacy of their own home,
I've had friends and acquaintances who were gay and it just didn't matter to
me. But marriage is a specific, defined situation. The gays can do as they
please and got all of what they wanted with "domestic partnership". Why must
they insert themselves into a specific situation and force the rest of us to
change our defintions, one that has worked well for centuries, to accomodate
otheres when accomodation has already been made.
What is the difference between domestic partnership and marriage? There is
any. So then why force it? To undermine society as a whole by infiltrating
institutions and traditions, changing tier meanings until socirety itself
doen't know what it stands for.
Who does that benefit?
Frank
>
> Do you believe your right to life and liberty can be removed by the
> mere passage of a law? Do you know what rights are?
>
> Bill Smith
>
>
>
Gray Ghost
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:39:46 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>news:sesp24dplu3jm4t4e...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:08:51 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Lone Weasel <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
>>>>> right looks like:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://practice.findlaw.com/law-practice-management-articles/00006/000
>>>>> 45 2. html
>>>>>
>>>>> In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999
>>>>>
>>>>> In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state
>>>>> Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be
>>>>> interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form
>>>>> a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or
>>>>> heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
>>>>> couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each
>>>>> statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to
>>>>> opposite- sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that
>>>>> designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of
>>>>> opposite-sex and same- sex couples embodied in California's current
>>>>> marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and
>>>>> well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state
>>>>> interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Lone Weasel
>>>>
>>>>Actually what happened is 4 unaccountable judges overturned a clear
>>>>mandate in 2000 where Californians voted 61-39 against the marriage
>>>>between same sex couples.
>>>>
>>>>IOW if the logic of your argument cannot persuade people, just fall
>>>>back on activist judges to shove it down thier throat.
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>
>>> Please point out where the Constitution (state or federal) empowers
>>> the government with the authority to say who may marry and who may
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>> Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
>>> without knowledge, of things without parallel.
>>> Ambrose Bierce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If you accept the benefits of being married as conferred by the
>>government than you abide by thier rules to obtain the status. When a
>>populace votes 61- 39 to keep it meaning what it has meant for 1000s of
>>years I think you're obliged to comply.
>>
>>And don't discount the issue of faith. It may not meaning to you but it
>>does to many people and many people will be offended by this.
>>
>>Aside from the fact that my dissent is on the grounds of 4 unaccountable
>>judges dismissing the "will of the people" as evidenced by a 61-39
>>referendum.
>>
>>Judicial usurpation is my issue.
>>
>>Frank
>
> A Constitutional amendment that confers upon the Government the
> authority to say who may marry and who may not will be required. What
> has happened, however, is that the people passed a law to limit the
> rights of one segment of our society because they are offended. Does
> this sound a trifle familiar, what with this being TPG and all? You
> can't have it both ways. My ownership of guns offends some people no
> end and they can pound sand for all I care.
>
> Bill Smith
>
> Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
> without knowledge, of things without parallel.
> Ambrose Bierce
>
Self defence, there fore weapon ownership is a right open to everyone.
Marriage is a specific legal contract that is not available to everyone, just
like the military, being a cop or being a pilot is not available to everyone
except those that meet the requirements.
The requiremtn ofr marriage is a man, a woman and possibly children. Period,
end of sentnce. What people choose to call families may be different from the
legal or dictionary term but that does not alter the maeaning the word.
The gays can have domestic partnerships with all the rights, responsibilities
and obligations (we'll see how they like that) BUT IT IS NOT A MARRIAGE.
Once you start letting the malcontents change the meaning of words you are on
a slippery and dangerous slope indeed my friend.
Frank
Gray Ghost
Families are the nucleus of society. If you can undermine them and God knows
noone is doing that right bow are they, if you can break down a basic
building block it becomes much easier to mold society.
Inner city youth are an excellent example. Most statitically come from what
yused to be called broken homes. No structure, no disciplene, no sense of
self worth so what do they do tehy seek it out and join gangs. Suppose
another institution steps in and takes those kids and conditions them to be
compliant, reasonable and good subjects.
You don't read very much or study history much if you can't see this. Yeah,
I'm an alarmist. Doesn't make me wrong just ahead of my time.
Frank
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> ...
>
>
>
> > > > Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
> > > > right looks like:
>
> > > Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>
> So prior to civilization, mankind had a right to marry?
Of course.
> I think not....
I know you haven't thought yet but there's still time. Do you think
humans ever lived together in any kind of society prior to civil
society? If so, what kind of living together was it?
> We had a right to self defense,
How would you know? There's no written social record prior to
civilization; there are archaeological artifacts like cave paintings,
tools and pottery dug up at campsites, even graves excavated. Nothing
that suggests written or systematic laws.
How would you know you had a right to have guns thousands of years
before the invention of guns? How would you know you had any right to
have or use weapons against other humans and not just animals? Cite
your sources.
> Right to procreate, but marriage came from culture and religion.
Do you have to be civilized to have culture? What about cave
paintings - where's the civilization for cavemen? Where's the
religion? Where are the priests and human-centered god fantasies in
an animistic culture?
Just because you have a complex culture doesn't mean you have any
rights.
So first you need to be explicit about what you mean by civilization,
sounds like you mean the fucking Holy Roman Empire. Then you need to
explain why marriage has to be a religious ritual or any kind of
ritual as opposed to simple lust or conveniance - I suspect
conveniance beats sex most of the time.
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> Self defence, there fore weapon ownership is a right open to everyone.
Self-defense doesn't imply any weapon other than your own body; or
brains if you have any.
Next please.
Bruce Foxton
> Just because you have a complex culture doesn't mean you have any
> rights.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
This from the Gay, Fat Texan, who is a felon.
RD (The Sandman)
news:KeqdnQ4_jP2u97PV...@comcast.com:
What's your point? At one time slavery was something decided by the
people at large.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9AA176FEE7AC7We...@216.196.97.142:
That would be true for either side of that argument.
The Lone Weasel
Ken Frenchu has some kind of transference fetish. He accuses anybody
other than himself of having personal characteristics that he's kept
hidden all his life, and this is how persons like Kennyboy with
transference fetishes allow themselves to confess the obvious fact
that they themselves are "gay, fat and a felon" without - at least in
their own dim minds - admitting it.
Kenny Frenchu is the poster boy for transference fetish of the GAY,
FAT and FELONIOUS type...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
Your Higher Power,
The Lone Weasel
Felix D.
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA19DD4...@216.196.97.136...
>> This ruling affected something decided by the people at large, not
>> some crackpot law dreamed up by a state legislator eager to make a
>> name for himself.
>
> What's your point? At one time slavery was something decided by the
> people at large.
Yes, a war decided that issue. Here, we're not talking a piece of work
crafted in a some legislation, but a social question that was put directly
to the people in the absence of meaningful legislation. If you wish to say
that Lincoln's election was a referendum on slavery, well ... yes and no.
At the time of secession, slavery was one of the issues, but not *the*
issue, in an environment of deteriorating relations between the states and
central government. Note that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only
after the Union victory at Antietam.
Bama Brian
Simply put, true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's
for lunch.
Fortunately for us all, our civil rights aren't decided by popular vote.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
The Lone Weasel
> Felix D. wrote:
> > "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9AA19DD4...@216.196.97.136...
>
> >>> This ruling affected something decided by the people at large, not
> >>> some crackpot law dreamed up by a state legislator eager to make a
> >>> name for himself.
> >> What's your point? At one time slavery was something decided by the
> >> people at large.
>
> > Yes, a war decided that issue. Here, we're not talking a piece of work
> > crafted in a some legislation, but a social question that was put directly
> > to the people in the absence of meaningful legislation. If you wish to say
> > that Lincoln's election was a referendum on slavery, well ... yes and no.
> > At the time of secession, slavery was one of the issues, but not *the*
> > issue, in an environment of deteriorating relations between the states and
> > central government. Note that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only
> > after the Union victory at Antietam.
>
> Simply put, true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's
> for lunch.
Who's the source of that idiotic quote, Mr. Claypool? Probably
Limbaugh...
You sociofatass.
Gray Ghost
ce3963...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Unlike having guns. We have a natural right to self-defense. We
> don't have any natural right to Glocks.
>
>
If one has a natural right to self defense has does one not have the right to
the means thereof?
Having the right to self defense without the means to do so is no right at
all.
Frank
Gray Ghost
d64ca1...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> [begin excerpt]
>
> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
> fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v.
> Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v.
> Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom
> on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications
> embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
> subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
> Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's
> citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
> Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to
> marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
> Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,
> a person of another race resides with the individual and
> cannot be infringed by the State.
>
> Chief Justice Warren, Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
>
Ypu are always so eager to quote the Supremes when they gree with your view
but you've talked of impeaching those that disagree.
If you want to talk of the infallabilty of the Supremes I refer you to Dred
Scott.
If the Supremes find that there is a individual right, what will you do?
Frank
Gray Ghost
> In article <FqCdnWAVy8rTZLDV...@giganews.com>,
> topp...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> "Bruce Foxton" <The...@Bass.gov.> wrote in message
>> news:482df62c$0$11619$607e...@cv.net...
>> > Topp@Work wrote:
>> >
>> > > "The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> news:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > >>On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>"The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > >
>> > >
>> messagenews:6f1394f3-a6af-4e22...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.
>> com
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > >>>>Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real
>> > >>>>constitutional right looks like:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Uhm..Marriage is an INVETION of RELIGION....
>> > >>
>> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So prior to civilization, mankind had a right to marry?
>> > > I think not....
>> >
>> > That's why you don't think well. :)
>> >
>> >
>> > > We had a right to self defense, Right to procreate, but marriage
>> > > came from culture and religion.
>> >
>> > So why did you get married, if you claim you didn't have the right?
>> >
>> > WHY you got married is a different thing than having the right to get
>> > married for tax reasons!
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marriage" is simply nothing more than a LEGAL binding between two
>> > partners that agree that they won't fuck each other up, by screwing
>> > others.
>>
>> And there you have it "LEGAL binding"
>> I was not born with the right to marriage....because no such right
>> exists.
>>
> Sure you were.
> Weren't you born with the right to enter into legal contracts with
> whomever you wish?
>
> Jim
Gentlemen, the real issue is whether 4 unacountable judges may overturn the
expressed will of the people in a 61-39 referendum.
If they can, then notthing is safe.
How hout the judge in St Louis who ordered the legislature to raise taxes for
the school system. And the meekly complied.
Forget the gay maariage, yes there are social disruptors who want to scramble
this society to thier own warped view, but 2 men buggering each other is
hardly the issue.
Unaccountable judges, stepping well beyond thier authority and usurping both
the people's will and a legislature's rights and responsibilities is
considerably more important.
And more to the point.
Frank
Gray Ghost
That's because words have meaning. Marriage has a specific definiton based on
religion, law and societal health. If the gays want legally binding
interpersonal contracts that is fine. But they may not call it marriage.
Words have meanings. Of you allow people to modify those meanings than words
and law which uses words to define behaviors and punishments will become
completely arbitrary and subject to the general mood of the moment.
Something I'm sure most of us would oppose.
Frank
Gray Ghost
20c630...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Having a right and having a right to a means to excercise that right are one
and the same.
If a 110lb woman has the right to defend herself (take any action neccessary
to preserve her life and prevent grievous bodily injury) against a 220lb
rapist but the state then denies her access to the most effective means of
defense the right of self defense is rather pointless than isn't it?
Frank
r_c_...@hushmail.com
It has been attributed to Ben Franklin by some people, but I cannot
verify if that is correct.
> You sociofatass.
Brian is using that quote to illustrate the concept of "tyranny of the
majority". Please note his next sentence:
> > Fortunately for us all, our civil rights aren't decided by popular vote.
He appears to be agreeing with you in respect to the subject of this
thread.
>
> --
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The Lone Weasel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6b64e5b5-6769-4b3d-a2b6-
> ce3963f5c...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Unlike having guns. We have a natural right to self-defense. We
> > don't have any natural right to Glocks.
>
> If one has a natural right to self defense has does one not have the right to
> the means thereof?
You have your fists & feet & brains. Two outa three aint bad, eh
Great Goose?
> Having the right to self defense without the means to do so is no right at
> all.
You don't have any natural right to have any weapon you want. If you
have any right to have weapons it'll be under state law.
Why you don't use your tiny size to hide from attackers, Frank? You'd
have a natural right to do that. No natural right for guns though.
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:39cb118f-8c5d-45f9-99c7-
> d64ca189c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > [begin excerpt]
>
> > Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
> > fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v.
> > Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v.
> > Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom
> > on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications
> > embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
> > subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
> > Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's
> > citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
> > Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to
> > marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
> > Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,
> > a person of another race resides with the individual and
> > cannot be infringed by the State.
>
> > Chief Justice Warren, Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
>
> Ypu are always so eager to quote the Supremes when they gree with your view
> but you've talked of impeaching those that disagree.
You are correct Gooseboy..
> If you want to talk of the infallabilty of the Supremes I refer you to Dred
> Scott.
I never said anything about infallibility; however, the Taney Court's
opinion in Sandford v Scott simply affirmed 200 years of colonial/
state pro-slavery statutes and 60 years of Constitutional and
Congressional protection of slavery that violated Dred Scott's human
rights.
> If the Supremes find that there is a individual right, what will you do?
What kind of individual right do you mean, Great Goose?
Maybe you could cite a real Founder or Framer of the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights who simply says you have an individual gun right
under the Second Amendment.
Then cite away, feathery fatheaded firearm infatuatuado...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
Buck Mulligan
:Here's what a real "natural right" that's also a real constitutional
:right looks like:
:California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage
>Maybe you could cite a real Founder or Framer of the Constitution or
>the Bill of Rights who simply says you have an individual gun right
>under the Second Amendment.
You can do the same on the issue of gay marriage, Jabba.
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8321d800-4fee-4641-adf5-
> 20c630768...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 11:24 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> > wrote:
>
> >> Self defence, there fore weapon ownership is a right open to everyone.
>
> > Self-defense doesn't imply any weapon other than your own body; or
> > brains if you have any.
>
> > Next please.
>
> > --
>
> > Yours truly,
>
> > The Lone Weasel
>
> Having a right and having a right to a means to excercise that right are one
> and the same.
And Virginia grants you means to exercise your own indivisible right
to self-defense by the legalization of stilts. That has nothing to do
with a 2nd Amendment prohibition against disarming the well-regulated
militia.
The Lone Weasel
Gay marriage was so common in Early America that the Founders didn't
need to mention it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - not
even once!
Point proven!
Herb Martin
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93ac63bb-d72c-4cae...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Actually VA grants all law-abiding citizens 18 or older the right to bear
arms, open carry.
Peter Franks
> Maybe you could cite a real Founder or Framer of the Constitution or
> the Bill of Rights who simply says you have an individual gun right
> under the Second Amendment.
Can you cite a real Founder or Framer of the Constitution or the Bill of
Rights who simply says you have an individual right to be secure in your
persons, houses, papers, and effects under the Fourth Amendment?
Gray Ghost
You seem utterly incapable of staying on point. Why is that?
Frank
Gray Ghost
> On May 18, 11:54 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6b64e5b5-6769-4b3d-a2b6- ce3963f5c...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Unlike having guns. We have a natural right to self-defense. We
>> > don't have any natural right to Glocks.
>>
>> If one has a natural right to self defense has does one not have the
>> right to the means thereof?
>
> You have your fists & feet & brains. Two outa three aint bad, eh
> Great Goose?
And what does a 110lb woman or an 80 yo woman do against a 20 something 220lb
rapist?
Frank
Gray Ghost
I did. You ignored it. What would be the point?
Frank
Gray Ghost
51c145...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
And you can prove this?
Frank
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:93ac63bb-d72c-4cae...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Can you cite the section of VA Code or their Constitution that says
so?
I think all carry rights for firearms should be open carry. Concealed-
carry except in rare circumstances is dishonorable for law-abiding
folks. Guns should be carried in clear sight with a view to
discourage crime and to let everybody know you're carrying a firearm.
That should go for long guns too.
I just checked the VA Code and didn't find any open carry law. Nice
try, Herbot...
But I think open carry is the only way to carry guns.
The Lone Weasel
Yes I can. How bout you cite one then I'll cite one, eh Goober?
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote innews:93ac63bb-d72c-4cae...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> > On May 18, 12:16 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> > wrote:
> >> The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:8321d800-4fee-4641-adf5- 20c630768...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On May 17, 11:24 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Self defence, there fore weapon ownership is a right open to
> >> >> everyone.
>
> >> > Self-defense doesn't imply any weapon other than your own body; or
> >> > brains if you have any.
>
> >> > Next please.
>
> >> Having a right and having a right to a means to excercise that right are
> >> one and the same.
>
> > And Virginia grants you means to exercise your own indivisible right
> > to self-defense by the legalization of stilts. That has nothing to do
> > with a 2nd Amendment prohibition against disarming the well-regulated
> > militia.
>
> You seem utterly incapable of staying on point. Why is that?
Okay here's an example of having a right and having no right to
exercise the right. Remember Bean?
[begin excerpt]
UNITED STATES et al. v. BEAN
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the
fifth circuit
No. 01-704. Argued October 16, 2002--Decided December 10,
2002
Because of respondent's felony conviction, he was prohibited
by 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1) from possessing, distributing, or
receiving firearms or ammunition. Relying on §925(c), he
applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(ATF) for relief from his firearms disabilities. ATF
returned the application unprocessed, explaining that its
annual appropriations law forbade it from expending any
funds to investigate or act upon such applications. Invoking
§925(c)'s judicial review provision, he filed suit, asking
the District Court to conduct its own inquiry into his
fitness to possess a gun and to issue a judicial order
granting relief. The court granted the requested relief, and
the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The absence of an actual denial by ATF of a felon's
petition precludes judicial review under §925(c). The
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief from
a firearms disability if certain preconditions are met, and
an applicant may seek federal-court review if the Secretary
denies his application. Ibid. Since 1992, however, the
appropriations bar has prevented ATF, to which the Secretary
has delegated this authority, from using appropriated funds
to investigate or act upon the applications. Section
925(c)'s text and the procedure it lays out for seeking
relief make clear that an actual decision by ATF on an
application is a prerequisite for judicial review, and that
mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with
independent jurisdiction. Grammatically, the phrase "denied
by the Secretary" references the Secretary's decision on
whether an applicant "will not be likely to act in a manner
dangerous to public safety," and whether "the granting of
the relief would not be contrary to the public interest."
Such determination can hardly be construed as anything but a
decision actually denying the application. Under §925(c)'s
procedure for those seeking relief, the Secretary, i.e.,
ATF, has broad authority to grant or deny relief, even when
the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. This procedure
shows that judicial review cannot occur without a
dispositive decision by ATF. First, in the absence of a
statutorily defined standard of review for action under
§925(c), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies the
applicable standard. 5 U. S. C. §§701(a), 706(2)(A). The
APA's "arbitrary and capricious" test, by its nature,
contemplates review of some action by another entity.
Second, both parts of §925(c)'s standard for granting
relief--whether an applicant is "likely to act in a manner
dangerous to public safety" and whether the relief is in the
"public interest"--are policy-based determinations and,
hence, point to ATF as the primary decisionmaker. Third,
§925(c) allows the admission of additional evidence in
district court proceedings only in exceptional
circumstances. Congressional assignment of such a
circumscribed role to a district court shows that the
statute contemplates that a court's determination will
heavily rely on the record and the ATF's decision. Indeed,
the very use in §925(c) of the word "review" to describe a
court's responsibility in this statutory scheme signifies
that it cannot grant relief on its own, absent an antecedent
actual denial by ATF. Pp. 2-7.
253 F. 3d 234, reversed.
[end excerpt]
Point proven.