quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Then what's the point of having states' rights if the Fed has power over anything they do? States' rights were originally promised in exchange for votes to ratify the Constitution, and it was a hard sell because the fear of many of the Founders was a new centralized government similar to the monarchy they fled would be created. They did not want to create what they left behind but that's what we have more so now than ever. And here you are saying the Fed should be able to trump any state law... absolutely contrasting the Founders' visions of checks and balances in power.

The states do have rights that the Fed cannot bypass. Article Four is all about that.

The founders knew that the Fed had to have a lot of power or else the country would collapse. Hence the lovely elastic clause. But also hence the checks and balances, which we still have and are in full effect.

Also, fuck the founders.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I love all the conservatives yelling out that the judge was some huge "activist."

A gay judge ruling against the traditional definition of marriage, who wanted the unprecedented step of having cameras put in the courtroom before this show trial. Yeah, not activist at all. LOL!

quote:

The fact is that the entire defense Prop 8 had was that homosexuals aren't as good as heterosexuals and they had no evidence to back it up since it isn't true at all.

What?

quote:

And don't even try to claim that there is no "different class." It's completely a different class and they are being discriminated against.

How can it be a "different class" if Civil Unions get the exact same rights/benefits afforded to them as married heterosexuals? Explain then how a heterosexual couple isn't being discriminated against for not being allowed to partake in a Civil Union?

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here...

































































Lame joke aside, lets say that Kevin is correct about Proposition 8 in California, and that the judge should not have gone against the will of the people. That's gravy. What, then about other states that don't recognize even a civil union for homosexual couples? Does that or does that not violate the fourteenth amendment?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews But also hence the checks and balances, which we still have and are in full effect. Also, fuck the founders.

Yeah... checks and balances are working out swimmingly.

You only exist today, in the lifestyle and living standard you have, with incredible amounts of opportunity afforded to you because of the Founders' actions 230+ years ago. Who knows what kind of place this country would be otherwise, considering the history of the world. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying "fuck the founders" you ungrateful little prick.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yeah... checks and balances are working out swimmingly. You only exist today, in the lifestyle and living standard you have, with incredible amounts of opportunity afforded to you because of the Founders' actions 230+ years ago. Who knows what kind of place this country would be otherwise, considering the history of the world. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying "fuck the founders" you ungrateful little prick.

Kevin it comes down to something very simple: you can not make a legal class of people and then discriminate against people from joining that legal class on the basis of religion or gender. That is a violation of the 14th amendment because you deny a certain eligible group the same legal protections that another group has when in all other instances, besides that of the gender of the members of the group (which has already been established in hundreds of cases as being something you can not discriminate based on), that group is the exact same.

This judge was not being an activist, he was being right. It will get reaffirmed in the 9th (duh) and upheld in the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if you do not like how it works, then you can get the fuck out and move to some country that doesn't have a functioning, legitimate court system. Try Somalia? Oh I forgot, black people and Kevin hates black people because he is living in FROM the south and he is a Republican.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss A gay judge ruling against the traditional definition of marriage, who wanted the unprecedented step of having cameras put in the courtroom before this show trial. Yeah, not activist at all. LOL! What? How can it be a "different class" if Civil Unions get the exact same rights/benefits afforded to them as married heterosexuals? Explain then how a heterosexual couple isn't being discriminated against for not being allowed to partake in a Civil Union?

He is known for being very harsh on gays, even though he is gay himself.

Who gives a fuck about the traditional definition? Traditional just means outdated in this sense. Why the hell shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Because it said in the Old Testament that it is wrong?

Yeah, wanting cameras is so activist! He's fucking crazy. Watch out for him!



Did you pay attention to the trial at all? The defense in the case had no hard evidence at all to support their opinion, their experts were idiots, and all they tried to do was keep saying that gay couples aren't as good as heterosexual couples.



Yeah, they get the same rights, but they're called something else. They're not allowed to be married. That's only for the normal people. Marriage is sacred and holy and we can't allow them to defile it!

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Lame joke aside, lets say that Kevin is correct about Proposition 8 in California, and that the judge should not have gone against the will of the people. That's gravy. What, then about other states that don't recognize even a civil union for homosexual couples? Does that or does that not violate the fourteenth amendment?

Let me be clear: I have zero problem with Civil Unions. I have zero problems with gay couples having all the exact same level of legal protection and rights/benefits afforded to them via Civil Unions as strait people do via traditional marriage. I don't agree with the trampling of states' rights, and I don't agree with using the word "discrimination" to change the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". If Civil Unions are exactly equal under law as marriage, what's the problem? Why is there such a desire to de-construct the traditional institutions in this country?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Let me be clear: I have zero problem with Civil Unions. I have zero problems with gay couples having all the exact same level of legal protection and rights/benefits afforded to them via Civil Unions as strait people do via traditional marriage. I don't agree with the trampling of states' rights, and I don't agree with using the word "discrimination" to change the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". If Civil Unions are exactly equal under law as marriage, what's the problem? Why is there such a desire to de-construct the traditional institutions in this country?

Kevin supports segregation in the South!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yeah... checks and balances are working out swimmingly. You only exist today, in the lifestyle and living standard you have, with incredible amounts of opportunity afforded to you because of the Founders' actions 230+ years ago. Who knows what kind of place this country would be otherwise, considering the history of the world. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying "fuck the founders" you ungrateful little prick.

Fuck. The. Founders.

Seriously, why do all Conservatives hold them up to be these amazing people? Yes, I respect what they did and think they were very smart people (white men), but that doesn't mean I have to think they were perfect, that their opinion should rule the country now, and that I need to suck their dicks.

They owned slaves, didn't allow women to vote, and had a lot of flaws. I'm not going to pretend that they were perfect individuals.


Oh, and I only exist today in the lifestyle and with the living standards I have because of a lot of things, not just the founders' actions. The big bang, for one, definitely has a lot more to do with it than the founders' actions.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by Lews The big bang, for one, definitely has a lot more to do with it than the founders' actions.

Yea you could be living in Europe with their bad plumbing and expensive free health care if it wasn't for the founders!

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Yea you could be living in Europe with their bad plumbing and expensive free health care if it wasn't for the founders!

Hey, their bad plumbing is older than this country

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)