9th Circuit Craps On Arizona Voters...AGAIN!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sadly... being strong believers in natural law and impeccable purveyors of sound reasoning, the framers did not set protections for mouthy pervs to force their own debauched sexual needs upon the culture at large.

But IF THEY HAD! ... MAN! ... THAT would have been a great point!

Most of them also didn't think blacks were fully human. Or women were equal.

So there's that.

Oh golly... Isn't that brilliant? Just LOOK at how it deflects and conflates the circumstances of that day with those of modern times.

Of course, what they DID do was to proclaim their own recognition of the laws of nature, wherein they observed that ALL MEN are created equal... thus ALL MEN, (which would include black men) were rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their lives, which inevitably lead to black men, MOST OF WHOM WERE FREE MEN IN THAT DAY... and otherwise perfectly capable of exercising their God-given rights, some of whom rejected their responsibilities and OWNED OTHER BLACK MEN as LIVESTOCK.

So spare us the false indignation of that absurd deflection... it won't sell here scout.

rofl

You may not know this, s0n, but Glen Beck University isn't a real university.

By 1776, approximately 8 percent of African Americans were free.

Free Blacks in the South- Slavery in the U.S.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I admire your humility to open with such, but in reality, it's all ya really had.

Holy crap.

Pubes, is that you?

I'll thank you to avert your imagination and cease from further comment on my nethers... .

What is it about your lives that forces you people to induce sexual deviancy into every facet of those lives? I do not even KNOW YOU, yet you clearly feel perfectly comfortable speaking to me in otherwise sexual contexts which are so beyond the pale of decency as to render you HYSTERICAL!

HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

 

[Czernobog]

In my case....married woman to woman.

A woman cannot marry a woman.

You see scamp, marriage is defined, by the natural design of the species, as the joining of one man and one woman.

At best what you have is a room-mate contract. While legally binding, it is in no way relevant to marriage, and this without regard to the presense by the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, to the contrary.

It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?

Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.

Commander.

You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?

See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.

Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Huh... if ONLY the US Constitution provided protections for sexual deviants to force others to set aside their responsibilities to defend their own means to defend their OWN RIGHTS!


Sadly... being strong believers in natural law and impeccable purveyors of sound reasoning, the framers did not set protections for mouthy pervs to force their own debauched sexual needs upon the culture at large.

But IF THEY HAD! ... MAN! ... THAT would have been a great point!

It does. The 14th amendment protects all citizens - even those you personally think are "sexual deviants". Gotta love the Constitution!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no such thing as "Marriage Equality". Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. There is no potential for a contest of any other form of marriage as no other form of marriage is possible, because MARRIAGE MEANS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!

Simple stuff. And it doesn't get complex, just because you people can't understand it.

Yes, simple, as in silly, stupid, shallow, and illiterate. marriage carried no such verbiage until 1996, when same-sex couples were discovered getting married, and Right-Wing moralists started shitting themselves, and rushed to their state capitols to change the definitions in the laws. Now that the courts have all been ruling that those changes were neither legal, nor valid, same-sex marriages are once again becoming legally accepted much to the chagrin of the Right-Wing moralists. Well, sucks to be you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. I well recall the debates of the 1970s and 80s wherein the opposition to the acceptance of homosexuals (Shutting down the sodomy laws) were concerned with the Homosexuals asking to be married if such laws were dropped and the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality REELING IN DISGUST AT THE TEMERITY OF THE OPPOSITION TO EVEN SUGGEST SUCH! "No homosexual would ever considering trying to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That goes without saying...' CNN Crossfire... Early 80s.

Prior to that, no one really considered the world devolving to the point where such would need to be openly and specifically defined. That doesn't mean that it was not defined that way before evil advanced to the point where it needed to be EXPRESSED!

 

[Toro]

Holy crap.

Pubes, is that you?

I'll thank you to avert your imagination from and cease from further comment on my nethers... .

What is it about your lives that forces you people to induce sexual deviancy into every facet of those lives? I do not even KNOW YOU, yet you clearly feel perfectly comfortable speaking to me in otherwise sexual contexts which are so beyond the pale of decency as to render you HYSTERICAL!

HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

Hey, PI. What's up?

 

[Toro]

There is no such thing as "Marriage Equality". Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. There is no potential for a contest of any other form of marriage as no other form of marriage is possible, because MARRIAGE MEANS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!

Simple stuff. And it doesn't get complex, just because you people can't understand it.

Yes, simple, as in silly, stupid, shallow, and illiterate. marriage carried no such verbiage until 1996, when same-sex couples were discovered getting married, and Right-Wing moralists started shitting themselves, and rushed to their state capitols to change the definitions in the laws. Now that the courts have all been ruling that those changes were neither legal, nor valid, same-sex marriages are once again becoming legally accepted much to the chagrin of the Right-Wing moralists. Well, sucks to be you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You forgot to add "sis" at the end of your sentence, Pubes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.

False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.

You're ridiculous.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.

False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.

Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....

 

[bodecea]

If my religion says "do no partake in gay marriage" and you pass a law that says I must, you have interfered with my practice of my religion.

And as soon as a law is passed that says you, as an individual (not to be confused with business operators, which conduct business under an entirely separate set of regulations, and expectations than private citizens), have to take part in a gay wedding, I will be right by your side fighting that injustice. However, since no such law exists, your point is kinda moot, don't ya think?

Houston. I stand with the Pastors, they are in the right. The mayor is wrong.

No they aren't. As soon as those pastors in Houston started using the religious pulpit as a political stumping post, they lost the right to hide behind "religious freedom". Sorry, your religious freedom ends at the political arena. Besides Houston isn't about trying to "force pastors to partake in gay marriage"; it is a case of subpoenaing speeches in which they made political speeches against the cities non-discrimination laws during their sermons. Laws that have no effect on Churches or pastors. As I said, your pastor's "religious freedom of expression" ends at the political arena.

You really need to pay attention.

IMO, all churches should lose their tax-exempt status. And temples...and mosques...and synagogues.

 

[Czernobog]

In my case....married woman to woman.

A woman cannot marry a woman.

You see scamp, marriage is defined, by the natural design of the species, as the joining of one man and one woman.

At best what you have is a room-mate contract. While legally binding, it is in no way relevant to marriage, and this without regard to the presense by the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, to the contrary.

It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?

Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.

Commander.

You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?

See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.

Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Please show where at ANY point I supported a state law against gay marriage, I'm firmly opposed to such. I merely argue from a technical standpoint that a Constitutional Amendment certainly COULD make gay marriage illegal.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now , we KNOW that it wouldn't have to be repealed , despite your claims, to make way for an Amendment making gay marriage illegal, because it was not repealed to make DRINKING illegal, when the 18th was passed. So that little argument is DENIED.

except the 18th made drinking illegal for all. It didn't try to define some "special class" of citizen for whom drinking was magically okay. Not exactly the same as what you're trying to suggest. That's kinda why DOMA got shot down by the Courts - it didn't conform to the 14th. So, in order to pass a DOMA style Constitutional amendment, you would first have to pass an amendment that allows you to circumvent the 14th, based on a person's sexual preference.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A woman cannot marry a woman.

You see scamp, marriage is defined, by the natural design of the species, as the joining of one man and one woman.

At best what you have is a room-mate contract. While legally binding, it is in no way relevant to marriage, and this without regard to the presense by the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, to the contrary.

It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?

Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.

Commander.

You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?

See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.

Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Huh... if ONLY the US Constitution provided protections for sexual deviants to force others to set aside their responsibilities to defend their own means to defend their OWN RIGHTS!


Sadly... being strong believers in natural law and impeccable purveyors of sound reasoning, the framers did not set protections for mouthy pervs to force their own debauched sexual needs upon the culture at large.

But IF THEY HAD! ... MAN! ... THAT would have been a great point!

It does. The 14th amendment protects all citizens - even those you personally think are "sexual deviants". Gotta love the Constitution!

No... it doesn't. The issue was not protections OF the deviant, it was protection FROM the deviant.
Understand that there is no POTENTIAL for a right, which through the exercise of that right one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Nature established that standard. It did so by the very design of the human biology. You are demanding that those of us who recognize that IRREPRESSIBLE FACT, set aside that knowledge and accept you as NORMAL, despite your being wholly and irreparably ABNORMAL.

You do not have a right to force people to accept you or your deviant behavior. PERIOD.

What's more, the responsibilities which are intrinsic to my rights, require me to see to it that you do not force people to accept you. As in allowing you to do so, I forfeit my own means to exercise my own rights... and THAT is NOT going to happen.

There's a reason the SCOTUS did not hear the cases against the States. "NOW" is not a good time... . But fear not, GOOD times, they are approachin'. Then we can all sit around and watch for that most precious of all gifts, wherein the red faced Lib, flips from staunch proponent of JUDICIAL RULINGS TO "UNFETTERED ADVOCATE OF "THE WILL OF DUH PEOPLES!".

It's classic stuff and I for one NEVER TIRE OF IT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A woman cannot marry a woman.

You see scamp, marriage is defined, by the natural design of the species, as the joining of one man and one woman.

At best what you have is a room-mate contract. While legally binding, it is in no way relevant to marriage, and this without regard to the presense by the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, to the contrary.

It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?

Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.

Commander.

You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?

See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.

Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Please show where at ANY point I supported a state law against gay marriage, I'm firmly opposed to such. I merely argue from a technical standpoint that a Constitutional Amendment certainly COULD make gay marriage illegal.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now , we KNOW that it wouldn't have to be repealed , despite your claims, to make way for an Amendment making gay marriage illegal, because it was not repealed to make DRINKING illegal, when the 18th was passed. So that little argument is DENIED.

except the 18th made drinking illegal for all. It didn't try to define some "special class" of citizen for whom drinking was magically okay. Not exactly the same as what you're trying to suggest. That's kinda why DOMA got shot down by the Courts - it didn't conform to the 14th. So, in order to pass a DOMA style Constitutional amendment, you would first have to pass an amendment that allows you to circumvent the 14th, based on a person's sexual preference.

Just as Marriage standards APPLY TO ALL... Any man can marry ANY woman he can talk into it. Be they sexual deviant or any other kind of deviant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If my religion says "do no partake in gay marriage" and you pass a law that says I must, you have interfered with my practice of my religion.

And as soon as a law is passed that says you, as an individual (not to be confused with business operators, which conduct business under an entirely separate set of regulations, and expectations than private citizens), have to take part in a gay wedding, I will be right by your side fighting that injustice. However, since no such law exists, your point is kinda moot, don't ya think?

Houston. I stand with the Pastors, they are in the right. The mayor is wrong.

No they aren't. As soon as those pastors in Houston started using the religious pulpit as a political stumping post, they lost the right to hide behind "religious freedom". Sorry, your religious freedom ends at the political arena. Besides Houston isn't about trying to "force pastors to partake in gay marriage"; it is a case of subpoenaing speeches in which they made political speeches against the cities non-discrimination laws during their sermons. Laws that have no effect on Churches or pastors. As I said, your pastor's "religious freedom of expression" ends at the political arena.

You really need to pay attention.

IMO, all churches should lose their tax-exempt status. And temples...and mosques...and synagogues.

IYO, the US is and is NOT a democracy, 31 States now accept marriage for the sexually abnormal because of a popular acceptance of the sexually abnormal and judicial tyranny is perfectly fine... .

So, that sorta deals you out of the "People whose opinions are worthy of consideration.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.

False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.

You're ridiculous.

And your most recent concession is duly noted and once again, summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.

False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.

Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....

Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.

(See how easy this is folks?)

 

[Roadrunner]

Ex Post Facto

There's precedent.

Possession of fully automatic firearms being one; one day they were legal, the next day they were not.

Same could happen with a well written amendment.

Of course, if we ever get a Congress with the balls to allow the people to make this decision, we will probably already have a SCOTUS that knows calling a cat a dog does not make a cat a dog.

Do you know what it takes to pass an amendment to the constitution?

It takes two thirds of both the House of Reps and two thirds of the Senate to pass it. Then the president must sign it.

Even then it's not an amendment.

It must go to the states to be ratified. Three quarters of the states must ratify it for it to become an amendment to the constitution. Which means that 37 of the 50 states must ratify it.

Good luck with that.

Three quarters of the states? MAN... THAT is alot? What is that like 31 States?

WOW! It's a good thing you people haven't done anything to undermine the means of the majorities in 31 states to exercise their right to govern themselves... Because otherwise it would be HARD AS HELL to get 31 states to agree on ANYTHING!

.

.

.

.

.

(Let that one soak for a little bit kids... it'll come to 'em)

 

[Roadrunner]

Glad somebody knows math.

BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.

Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.

 

[Czernobog]

If my religion says "do no partake in gay marriage" and you pass a law that says I must, you have interfered with my practice of my religion.

And as soon as a law is passed that says you, as an individual (not to be confused with business operators, which conduct business under an entirely separate set of regulations, and expectations than private citizens), have to take part in a gay wedding, I will be right by your side fighting that injustice. However, since no such law exists, your point is kinda moot, don't ya think?

There is no potential for justice wherein a Business, which is owned and operated by individuals, is treated with ANY distinction from the laws and foundational principles upon which those laws rest, which govern the individual.

I have owned and operated many businesses in my time and at NO TIME have I ever treated a person differently, when I do BUSINESS with them, than I would them as a person.

This notion is found in Socialist sectors and is by every sense, a ludicrous rationalization. Tell me I have to do something in business which runs against my beliefs and you where you choose to enforce such you will send good men to their graves that day.

But that's only because I am an American, thus I instinctively understand what rights are, from where they come and the sacred responsibilities I must bear to sustain them.

The problem is your overly general use of the word "partake". You see, as a photographer, or a baker, you are not partaking in shit. You have no authority to have any input into the wedding vows, or the venue, or any other facet of the wedding which is the sole purview of the participants of the wedding - the Bride, and Groom, and their families. You are simply "there" to do your fucking job, which requires no approval, or opinion of any kind. All it requires you to do is bake a cake - which is, after all, the entire purpose of your business - or to take a fucking picture - again, the entire purpose of your business.

I guarantee you that there is not one single command in the New Testament which prohibits you from doing business with people you think are sinning. I would submit, in fact, that the Bible is quite clear in its prohibitions against you making judgements concerning other people's behavior, and how that does, or does not affect their standing with God. So, please do not try to suggest that your refusal to run your business contrary to public accommodation laws has anything to do with "religious conviction".

Holly Hobby was closer to a Biblical foundation for their position than you are sir; which probably explained why Holly Hobby did a better job of defending their position.

 

[bodecea]

It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?

Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.

Commander.

You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?

See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.

Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Please show where at ANY point I supported a state law against gay marriage, I'm firmly opposed to such. I merely argue from a technical standpoint that a Constitutional Amendment certainly COULD make gay marriage illegal.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now , we KNOW that it wouldn't have to be repealed , despite your claims, to make way for an Amendment making gay marriage illegal, because it was not repealed to make DRINKING illegal, when the 18th was passed. So that little argument is DENIED.

except the 18th made drinking illegal for all. It didn't try to define some "special class" of citizen for whom drinking was magically okay. Not exactly the same as what you're trying to suggest. That's kinda why DOMA got shot down by the Courts - it didn't conform to the 14th. So, in order to pass a DOMA style Constitutional amendment, you would first have to pass an amendment that allows you to circumvent the 14th, based on a person's sexual preference.

Just as Marriage standards APPLY TO ALL... Any man can marry ANY woman he can talk into it. Be they sexual deviant or any other kind of deviant.

And with gay marriage legalized, the government can no longer discriminate based on gender. Even tho you would rather the government still did so.

 

[bodecea]

Glad somebody knows math.

BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.

Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.

Two thirds of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention OR two thirds of both Houses of Congress can create an amendment.............THEN 3/4ths of the states must approve it thru state votes.

Good luck on that....if you think there is any chance of a Constitutional Amendment making civil gay marriage illegal, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff.

 

[Toro]

The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.

False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.

Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....

Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.

(See how easy this is folks?)

"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."