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

[Czernobog]

Because Christians wrote the damn thing. Duh.

Except they didn't! Duh! Theists, are not the same as Christian, no matter how much you would like it to be so.

Bullshit. They were mostly CHRISTIANS

There were 55 delegates in the Constitutional Congress in 1787 and 49 of them were Protestants.

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you can't acknowledge known facts then I am done with this conversation.

Well, then a I guess we're done. Because being on the rolls of a particular congregation does not make one an adherent of a religious belief. The writings of the most influential members of the 2nd Continental congress identify them, by their own words, as deists, and theists, with little respect for organized religion in general, let alone Christianity.

Then, of course, there is the physical evidence of the Treaty of Tripoli, which made it abundantly clear that the United States is in no way, shape, or form founded on Christianity.

 

[Czernobog]

Talk about a logical fallacy LOL"Yes , okay the Christians who wrote our COTUS did use reliogous morals when doing so, but it wasn't Christian morals" LOL

And, now you're creating a strawman. I never conceded they were "religious morals". I contend that the principles of the Constitution are civil, secular principle which have been adopted by many religions, because they are logical, not that they are religious principles with divine authority that civil governments have adopted.

 

[Toro]

Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.


I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Aren't you running away from Toro?

Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.

Petecea IS a troll. Ask her about her "naval career" sometime. her story has her lying about her sexual orientation for at least 10 years to serve as a naval aviator, so either she lied about that, or she's been lying for what I can see is about 10 years online. Either way, she has no integrity and so you owe her nothing of the like in return.

Where_r_My_PubliusInfinitum didn't answer my point about the founders not recognizing women and black people as being fully human either.

Instead, Where_r_My_PubliusInfinitum declared victory and moved on.

Just like in the olden days.

Good times. Good times.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Actually it's two thirds. Which means that 33 of the states must petition the congress for a constitutional convention.

It's possible to have a constitutional convention but it's never been done. Probably because it's not easy to get 33 states to do that.

All of our amendments were passed and established with the process of going through the congress. That process isn't easy to do either. Many amendments have been proposed but only 27 actually passed the whole process to become an amendment.

 

[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.

Actually it's two thirds. Which means that 33 of the states must petition the congress for a constitutional convention.

It's possible to have a constitutional convention but it's never been done. Probably because it's not easy to get 33 states to do that.

All of our amendments were passed and established with the process of going through the congress. That process isn't easy to do either. Many amendments have been proposed but only 27 actually passed the whole process to become an amendment.

I understand that amendments have been attempted over 9000 times since the Constitution was ratified...and if you figure the first 10 were put in place all at once, that leaves only 17 amendments over a 200+ year time.

 

[BullKurtz]

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.

I guess that those of us who are designated as such have no choice but to be content that the law is firmly, and solidly on our side of the issue, and that we have won. It's a tough pill to swallow, but we must just grit our teeth and try not to let it spoil our victory. So try to keep a stiff upper lip, and don't rain on the parade of the RW. They have lost the battle, and the war, and are probably going to be a little cross for a while. They will get over it in a generation or two.

You have the "law on your side" thanks to the overthrow of Constitutional government by the Pelousy/Reid axis in 2007. Your Kenyan has continued to make a mockery of the Constitution with his criminal cabal in the executive branch.....count the scandals....it will require you to take off your shoes and socks. The leftist 9th Circuit and sellouts like John Roberts leave us IN the RIGHT frustrated and looking for reversals. What you never count on is that this Nation is Under God and seems to always save us from the treachery of a minority brought into power by a long-corrupted public school system, rigged votes (Al Franken in Minn was so outrageous even the DNC had to hold it's nose), and a press that is so ideated they refuse to report the repeated failures of every program you weasels expect us to pay for. As I clearly state in my OP here, there is no law when the law is defined by the leftist cabal called the 9th Circuit. You will understand this and screech like trapped rats when we slowly but surely replace this entrenched judiciary, the Reid stranglehold on the Senate, and the Kenyan poser in the WH.

 

[BullKurtz]

I just posted the link fake marine. You said you grew up in Detroit but you are trying to claim Arizona. I think you are pissed because I got you banned under your alias Traintime. People that run around with 2 usernames have no credibility. Anyone curious just do a search on the liars escapades under Traintime.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/1143141/

It comes as no surprise you're a cowardly snitch....who doesn't know that about you now does. But the problem is you got my business partner banned, not me. He embarrassed your sorry little wigger ass so many times, you had to run to mommy for help. You're pathetic boy.....a mealy-mouthed worm who pretends he's a black man to get attention and extra length on your chain here in the board's quest for diversity. There are women here who are twice the man you are.

 

[Asclepias]

I just posted the link fake marine. You said you grew up in Detroit but you are trying to claim Arizona. I think you are pissed because I got you banned under your alias Traintime. People that run around with 2 usernames have no credibility. Anyone curious just do a search on the liars escapades under Traintime.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/1143141/

It comes as no surprise you're a cowardly snitch....who doesn't know that about you now does. But the problem is you got my business partner banned, not me. He embarrassed your sorry little wigger ass so many times, you had to run to mommy for help. You're pathetic boy.....a mealy-mouthed worm who pretends he's a black man to get attention and extra length on your chain here in the board's quest for diversity. There are women here who are twice the man you are.

Oh now its your business partner.

You have no credibility liar. Next time dont use the same words and tone in your post if you want to pretend you are someone else retard.

 

[Seawytch]

Not in any church. That's kinda the other side of the First amendment. No such enforcements are possible.

In My Church. Up to the Church. The gays are wrong to force a church to performe gay marriage. The gov't. has no constitutional authority to force a Church to.

No church has been forced to have a gay marriage, just like no church has ever been forced to have an interracial or an interfaith marriage. DO try to keep up.

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

A baker is not a church. This is news to you?

Do you even realize that none of the states with these "high profile" Public Accommodation cases were marriage equality states? Public Accommodation and civil marriage are two different things. In some states and localities, you cannot discriminate against gays, civil marriage or no.

In other states, gays can marry, but can also be discriminated against in Public Accommodation.

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I guess that those of us who are designated as such have no choice but to be content that the law is firmly, and solidly on our side of the issue, and that we have won. It's a tough pill to swallow, but we must just grit our teeth and try not to let it spoil our victory. So try to keep a stiff upper lip, and don't rain on the parade of the RW. They have lost the battle, and the war, and are probably going to be a little cross for a while. They will get over it in a generation or two.

You have the "law on your side" thanks to the overthrow of Constitutional government by the Pelousy/Reid axis in 2007. Your Kenyan has continued to make a mockery of the Constitution with his criminal cabal in the executive branch.....count the scandals....it will require you to take off your shoes and socks. The leftist 9th Circuit and sellouts like John Roberts leave us IN the RIGHT frustrated and looking for reversals. What you never count on is that this Nation is Under God and seems to always save us from the treachery of a minority brought into power by a long-corrupted public school system, rigged votes (Al Franken in Minn was so outrageous even the DNC had to hold it's nose), and a press that is so ideated they refuse to report the repeated failures of every program you weasels expect us to pay for. As I clearly state in my OP here, there is no law when the law is defined by the leftist cabal called the 9th Circuit. You will understand this and screech like trapped rats when we slowly but surely replace this entrenched judiciary, the Reid stranglehold on the Senate, and the Kenyan poser in the WH.

Wow! I haven't seen such kevetching since the last Dallas Cowboy loss.

 

[BullKurtz]

Wow! I haven't seen such kevetching since the last Dallas Cowboy loss.

OY VEY....if you're trying to go Yid on us, try learning how to spell kvetching.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

In My Church. Up to the Church. The gays are wrong to force a church to performe gay marriage. The gov't. has no constitutional authority to force a Church to.

No church has been forced to have a gay marriage, just like no church has ever been forced to have an interracial or an interfaith marriage. DO try to keep up.

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

A baker is not a church. This is news to you?

Do you even realize that none of the states with these "high profile" Public Accommodation cases were marriage equality states? Public Accommodation and civil marriage are two different things. In some states and localities, you cannot discriminate against gays, civil marriage or no.

In other states, gays can marry, but can also be discriminated against in Public Accommodation.

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

Marriage equality in regards to homo marriage is a misnomer. Protecting homos is different from homo coercion. Unconstitutional state laws do not theoretically usurp individual freedom. You are cherry picking and rationalizing.

 

[bodecea]

Wow! I haven't seen such kevetching since the last Dallas Cowboy loss.

OY VEY....if you're trying to go Yid on us, try learning how to spell kvetching.

Thanks...I'll remember the correct spelling from now on.

 

[bodecea]

No church has been forced to have a gay marriage, just like no church has ever been forced to have an interracial or an interfaith marriage. DO try to keep up.

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

A baker is not a church. This is news to you?

Do you even realize that none of the states with these "high profile" Public Accommodation cases were marriage equality states? Public Accommodation and civil marriage are two different things. In some states and localities, you cannot discriminate against gays, civil marriage or no.

In other states, gays can marry, but can also be discriminated against in Public Accommodation.

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

Marriage equality in regards to homo marriage is a misnomer. Protecting homos is different from homo coercion. Unconstitutional state laws do not theoretically usurp individual freedom. You are cherry picking and rationalizing.

Then why are they declared unConstitutional?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

A baker is not a church. This is news to you?

Do you even realize that none of the states with these "high profile" Public Accommodation cases were marriage equality states? Public Accommodation and civil marriage are two different things. In some states and localities, you cannot discriminate against gays, civil marriage or no.

In other states, gays can marry, but can also be discriminated against in Public Accommodation.

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

Marriage equality in regards to homo marriage is a misnomer. Protecting homos is different from homo coercion. Unconstitutional state laws do not theoretically usurp individual freedom. You are cherry picking and rationalizing.

Then why are they declared unConstitutional?

If it's law it's law. If it is essentially unconstitutional and usurps individual liberty it is unconstitutional. Like obamacare. Like helmet and seatbelt laws. You cherry pick some to try to justify others.

 

[bodecea]

A baker is not a church. This is news to you?

Do you even realize that none of the states with these "high profile" Public Accommodation cases were marriage equality states? Public Accommodation and civil marriage are two different things. In some states and localities, you cannot discriminate against gays, civil marriage or no.

In other states, gays can marry, but can also be discriminated against in Public Accommodation.

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

Marriage equality in regards to homo marriage is a misnomer. Protecting homos is different from homo coercion. Unconstitutional state laws do not theoretically usurp individual freedom. You are cherry picking and rationalizing.

Then why are they declared unConstitutional?

If it's law it's law. If it is essentially unconstitutional and usurps individual liberty it is unconstitutional. Like obamacare. Like helmet and seatbelt laws. You cherry pick some to try to justify others.

Hasn't Obamacare been declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court? As for helmet and seatbelt laws.....I don't mind if you choose to ignore them. Go right ahead. Donor card filled out? Have you made sure you have enough insurance so John Q Public doesn't have to pick up the tab for your injuries/death?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wow! I haven't seen such kevetching since the last Dallas Cowboy loss.

OY VEY....if you're trying to go Yid on us, try learning how to spell kvetching.

I'd accept Petecea's spelling errors, if she would just concentrate on being honest

 

[bodecea]

Wow! I haven't seen such kevetching since the last Dallas Cowboy loss.

OY VEY....if you're trying to go Yid on us, try learning how to spell kvetching.

I'd accept Petecea's spelling errors, if she would just concentrate on being honest

 

[BullKurtz]

Hasn't Obamacare been declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court? As for helmet and seatbelt laws.....I don't mind if you choose to ignore them. Go right ahead. Donor card filled out? Have you made sure you have enough insurance so John Q Public doesn't have to pick up the tab for your injuries/death?

No, the only aspect of Barry-Care that's been decided on is the admin's ability to call a penalty for not complying a "tax" which is Constitutional but not ethical. The USSC had a chance to sink that tugboat of special interests and friends in associated industries, but John Roberts rolled over like a whipped dog on us.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're making excuses for another lefty dichotomy.

I'm stating a fact that contradicts your opinion, that's all.

Some states recognize marriage equality, some protect gays in Public Accommodation. Some do both. They are not related.

Marriage equality in regards to homo marriage is a misnomer. Protecting homos is different from homo coercion. Unconstitutional state laws do not theoretically usurp individual freedom. You are cherry picking and rationalizing.

Then why are they declared unConstitutional?

If it's law it's law. If it is essentially unconstitutional and usurps individual liberty it is unconstitutional. Like obamacare. Like helmet and seatbelt laws. You cherry pick some to try to justify others.

Hasn't Obamacare been declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court? As for helmet and seatbelt laws.....I don't mind if you choose to ignore them. Go right ahead. Donor card filled out? Have you made sure you have enough insurance so John Q Public doesn't have to pick up the tab for your injuries/death?

Once again you rationalize. The Supreme Court decided to cal obamacare a tax. That was their rationale for impeding liberty. Like imposing a helmet law just to exist. That answers your other rationalization.