Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

fuck off troll...you said "remove"...they certainly can remove rights and then it is up to scotus to determine if the state acted properly or not. so yes, i am once again telling the truth and you act like a petulant child. scotus has yet to rule that gay marriage among the states is a civil right....so who is lying jake? not me....

I won't play semantics with you, because you are wrong as usual. You cannot stand being rightfully corrected. Our civil rights always remain, if not honored because of state tyranny. SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying.

cite where scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it.

what happened here, is that you were wrong after calling me a liar, instead of just admitting it, you now move the goal posts. FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do. it is not semantics at all, it is our system of government. think about it...states violate civil rights all the time, you claim they can't (using jakey's logic he is a liar), but they do. and guess what, you have to go to court for redress. think 1983 actions you dimwitted troll.

and you claim i'm lying because you simply aren't smart enough to understand what is being discussed. so you throw out your petulant....YOU ARE A LIAR get a new schtick troll

You claim that I said scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it. Another Yurt lie. I said, "SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying."

Yurt, you are lying.

Clayton_C_Jones wrote beautifully above that "One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence."

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Ohio and Kentucky - yep.


Need more coffee.





>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people.

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?

No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

I guess it all falls upon this then, as to the determining of what ones unique civil liberties are, and what they are considered to be completely in each unique case that is brought. If a judge so deems that they have met the standard in which those rights would then apply to them in a case, then arguments and appeals are and should be welcome as well afterwards. Now as to whether or not all equally can meet the standards in which the rights were meant to be understood as or are given when such things were documented, created or passed, and for which are to be applied to or not to be applied to upon review, otherwise whether it be by a panel of judges or a judge that would review such things as a new case to be brought, then it is any ones guess at that point as to what might or might not happen.

It is seemingly what is faced each time an issue is to be brought under review by the system, and if we think that the consensus of the people don't weigh heavily upon the judges minds, then place yourself in the other guy or gal's shoes who are experts at making judges feel this way (intimidated), and then you will think again about whether or not a judge or panel can be swayed by the people upon their rulings or their findings in such things.

It is incumbent upon the people, as represented by their elected officials, to enact measures that comport with the Constitution; and when they fail to do so they may not claim ‘will of the people’ as ‘justification.’

Moreover, judges, as administrators of the judicial branch of government, must review cases brought before them in good faith, where only the case law factors into their decision-making, not personal, subjective opinion or popular sentiment – this is why Federal judges are not elected, and are appointed for life terms, to ensure their impartiality.

 

[dcraelin]

No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

I guess it all falls upon this then, as to the determining of what ones unique civil liberties are, and what they are considered to be completely in each unique case that is brought. If a judge so deems that they have met the standard in which those rights would then apply to them in a case, then arguments and appeals are and should be welcome as well afterwards. Now as to whether or not all equally can meet the standards in which the rights were meant to be understood as or are given when such things were documented, created or passed, and for which are to be applied to or not to be applied to upon review, otherwise whether it be by a panel of judges or a judge that would review such things as a new case to be brought, then it is any ones guess at that point as to what might or might not happen.

It is seemingly what is faced each time an issue is to be brought under review by the system, and if we think that the consensus of the people don't weigh heavily upon the judges minds, then place yourself in the other guy or gal's shoes who are experts at making judges feel this way (intimidated), and then you will think again about whether or not a judge or panel can be swayed by the people upon their rulings or their findings in such things.

It is incumbent upon the people, as represented by their elected officials, to enact measures that comport with the Constitution; and when they fail to do so they may not claim ‘will of the people’ as ‘justification.’

Moreover, judges, as administrators of the judicial branch of government, must review cases brought before them in good faith, where only the case law factors into their decision-making, not personal, subjective opinion or popular sentiment – this is why Federal judges are not elected, and are appointed for life terms, to ensure their impartiality.

you were wrong with your dis-info on judicial review and your ass-backwards with this post also.

It is not really "incumbent" upon the people to enact measures that comport with the constitution,..if they feel they want to pass a measure that is constitutionally questionable they can do that, knowing that it may fail. They may also propose amendments to both state and national Constitutions. The Constitution is only legitimate so far as it reflects the will of the people, that is what makes it a higher law than legislative.

judges can look to more than case law. Cases brought "in good faith" would have eliminated the Windsor case. Appointments for life do NOT ensure impartiality.

 

[Silhouette]

It is not really "incumbent" upon the people to enact measures that comport with the constitution,..if they feel they want to pass a measure that is constitutionally questionable they can do that, knowing that it may fail. They may also propose amendments to both state and national Constitutions. The Constitution is only legitimate so far as it reflects the will of the people, that is what makes it a higher law than legislative.

judges can look to more than case law. Cases brought "in good faith" would have eliminated the Windsor case. Appointments for life do NOT ensure impartiality.

Good points. If you look at Windsor, that was just Written mere months ago, the Justices are not going to do an about face on their firm stance that states get to define marriage.

Like I said, they brought up Loving v Virginia, which is the same as bringing up the 14th, and they found that in spite of that same sex marriage is only legal in "some states". They made a comparison as well of same sex marriage as to blood relatives marrying [incest] and 13 year olds marrying in Vermont. Will there be a sudden sweep, a mandate of 13 year olds being able to marry across all 50 states? Probably not.

The simple fact that the avid followers of LGBT here are trying desperately to avoid talking about is that the US Supreme Court is not famous for reversing its key stance [they declared the issue of state's rights was pivotal in Windsor] on a given issue in less than a year's time.

Harvey Milk vs Utah will be heard this year. So, just prepare mentally that SCOTUS isn't likely to reverse it's key stance that states have the unquestioned and constitutionally supported right to a broad-swath consensus [goodbye judicial activism or even legislature activism] retroactive to the founding of the country. For this is exactly how they worded and intended Windsor to mean. They brought up the 14th and found that gay marraige did not apply across 50 states. As Larry the Cable Guy would say....."there's your sign..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people.

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.

Don't be silly. You mentioned the inadequacy of a federal judge in a political context, which makes the far right's idiots fair game as well.

Your comment reveals your ignorance on the subject, though. Consult The Aristocracy of the Long Robe: The Origins of Judicial Review in America (Contributions in Legal Studies)
so that you are able to talk about sides of the coin.

On the basis of a survey of English practice and American Colonial case law and legal controversies, the author engages in a sometimes heated complaint against the emergence of a Transcendently Omnipotent' Court' in opposition to the historical evidence that no precedent for such a Court can be found in English or Colonial American practice. Paradoxically, his review of Colonial controversies goes a considerable distance toward establishing that judicial review was an early topic of controversy and thus not without precedent in American constitutional development.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/The-Aristocracy-Long-Robe-Contributions/dp/0313267332[/ame]

 

[Yurt]

I won't play semantics with you, because you are wrong as usual. You cannot stand being rightfully corrected. Our civil rights always remain, if not honored because of state tyranny. SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying.

cite where scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it.

what happened here, is that you were wrong after calling me a liar, instead of just admitting it, you now move the goal posts. FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do. it is not semantics at all, it is our system of government. think about it...states violate civil rights all the time, you claim they can't (using jakey's logic he is a liar), but they do. and guess what, you have to go to court for redress. think 1983 actions you dimwitted troll.

and you claim i'm lying because you simply aren't smart enough to understand what is being discussed. so you throw out your petulant....YOU ARE A LIAR get a new schtick troll

You claim that I said scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it. Another Yurt lie. I said, "SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying."

Yurt, you are lying.

Clayton_C_Jones wrote beautifully above that "One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence."

great, so you now admit that scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage. good for you, you're getting a little more honest when backed in a corner and you realize i'm right, you're just too immature to admit it.

nice dodge on "states can't violate civil rights"....you, according to YOUR logic, LIED, because states violate civil rights all the time.

fuck off troll liar

 

[beagle9]

No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

I guess it all falls upon this then, as to the determining of what ones unique civil liberties are, and what they are considered to be completely in each unique case that is brought. If a judge so deems that they have met the standard in which those rights would then apply to them in a case, then arguments and appeals are and should be welcome as well afterwards. Now as to whether or not all equally can meet the standards in which the rights were meant to be understood as or are given when such things were documented, created or passed, and for which are to be applied to or not to be applied to upon review, otherwise whether it be by a panel of judges or a judge that would review such things as a new case to be brought, then it is any ones guess at that point as to what might or might not happen.

It is seemingly what is faced each time an issue is to be brought under review by the system, and if we think that the consensus of the people don't weigh heavily upon the judges minds, then place yourself in the other guy or gal's shoes who are experts at making judges feel this way (intimidated), and then you will think again about whether or not a judge or panel can be swayed by the people upon their rulings or their findings in such things.

It is incumbent upon the people, as represented by their elected officials, to enact measures that comport with the Constitution; and when they fail to do so they may not claim ‘will of the people’ as ‘justification.’

Moreover, judges, as administrators of the judicial branch of government, must review cases brought before them in good faith, where only the case law factors into their decision-making, not personal, subjective opinion or popular sentiment – this is why Federal judges are not elected, and are appointed for life terms, to ensure their impartiality.

Kidding me right ? That ensures their impartiality, because they are not elected, and have life terms ? If anything it ensures their being corrupted at any given time because of this (IMHO). So what if they become corrupted and controlled by a powerful cabal, drug cartel, minority, corporate corrupt elite, imperialistic ruling class, mafia types, or even a governing body that has become corrupted, then what ? Do these judges rule right through it all righteously and impartially as you think (or) do they tow the line out of fear and/or out of being controlled now by any of these bad situations that can easily exist now in our government and in America ? I personally think the government has been infiltrated now, and it took some time to do so, but it is showing up in just about everything now. Now why has this happened one would ask ? Well I think it's because the people had went astray or were driven astray over time, and they in regardless of this straying still have a government that represents them for who they have become or who they are, so what does that say ? Even if what they have become is wrong it matters not anymore, because everything changes with them, including these judges rulings and the government.

What was the failsafe to these things happening I wonder, because the way it is all going there seems to have been none to counter such things, even if those things are figured by the majority to be wrong and wrong headed, the people are now being forced to agree. Does these things equal a tyrannical government rule now, and for whom will rule on the side of special interest every time? YEP! They sure aren't ruling on the side of the people who are good and are of no harm to this nation at all in their good anymore. Now who exactly are these judges ruling for these days, and is it not unequal protection against those in which the rulings are against ? How can we recite equal protections under law, when the majority of the populous aren't included in that same protection under these rulings anymore ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

cite where scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it.

what happened here, is that you were wrong after calling me a liar, instead of just admitting it, you now move the goal posts. FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do. it is not semantics at all, it is our system of government. think about it...states violate civil rights all the time, you claim they can't (using jakey's logic he is a liar), but they do. and guess what, you have to go to court for redress. think 1983 actions you dimwitted troll.

and you claim i'm lying because you simply aren't smart enough to understand what is being discussed. so you throw out your petulant....YOU ARE A LIAR get a new schtick troll

You claim that I said scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it. Another Yurt lie. I said, "SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying."

Yurt, you are lying.

Clayton_C_Jones wrote beautifully above that "One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence."

great, so you now admit that scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage. good for you, you're getting a little more honest when backed in a corner and you realize i'm right, you're just too immature to admit it.

nice dodge on "states can't violate civil rights"....you, according to YOUR logic, LIED, because states violate civil rights all the time.
fuck off troll liar

You lied again, Yurt. I said the states, as long as they don't violate civil rights, can make rules for marriages.

Big difference. Son, you don't get to reinterpret what I write. You are wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong.

It is what it is. And here you are complaining like a little girl.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, beagle9, and Yurt are obviously engaged in filibabble.

They will post long diatribes that mean nothing.

They will make accusations they can't support.

They have their right to their opinions, and clear thinking folks can ignore them.

Tis what tis.

 

[Yurt]

jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:

1. i made this comment: scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage. this is absolutely true and jake claims i'm lying. fact is, at this point states can ban gay marriage until their courts overturn it or their federal court districts or circuits overturn it. why jake would claim they can't is beyond me, because the fact is, many states do in fact have a ban on gay marriage. yet, jake says i'm lying.....

2. jake made this comment: States' cannot violate civil rights. this is absolutely not true, states violate civil rights all the time, hence why we have 1983 actions.

3. nothing i have said in this thread is untrue. i have no idea why jakey is such a troll and hates me so much he can't have a rational discussion with me on an issue we both agree on. he is an immature asswipe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:

1. i made this comment: scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage. this is absolutely true and jake claims i'm lying. fact is, at this point states can ban gay marriage until their courts overturn it or their federal court districts or circuits overturn it. why jake would claim they can't is beyond me, because the fact is, many states do in fact have a ban on gay marriage. yet, jake says i'm lying.....

2. jake made this comment: States' cannot violate civil rights. this is absolutely not true, states violate civil rights all the time, hence why we have 1983 actions.

3. nothing i have said in this thread is untrue. i have no idea why jakey is such a troll and hates me so much he can't have a rational discussion with me on an issue we both agree on. he is an immature asswipe.

Yes, because you have mish mashed the above, and now everybody has to go back and read it all for themselves.

Yurt, you know that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even when caught out. Particularly when called out, because you will double down and lie even more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt will NOW call YOU a liar, Clayton.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people.

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.

Incorrect.

The doctrine of judicial review was in fact practiced by Colonial courts.

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

 

[Yurt]

FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

one question:

were rodney king's civil rights taken away when he was nearly beaten to death?

and the scotus does indeed restore rights. to say otherwise is naive and shows a lack of understanding of how our legal system works.

 

[Yurt]

jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:

1. i made this comment: scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage. this is absolutely true and jake claims i'm lying. fact is, at this point states can ban gay marriage until their courts overturn it or their federal court districts or circuits overturn it. why jake would claim they can't is beyond me, because the fact is, many states do in fact have a ban on gay marriage. yet, jake says i'm lying.....

2. jake made this comment: States' cannot violate civil rights. this is absolutely not true, states violate civil rights all the time, hence why we have 1983 actions.

3. nothing i have said in this thread is untrue. i have no idea why jakey is such a troll and hates me so much he can't have a rational discussion with me on an issue we both agree on. he is an immature asswipe.

Yes, because you have mish mashed the above, and now everybody has to go back and read it all for themselves.

Yurt, you know that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even when caught out. Particularly when called out, because you will double down and lie even more.

mish mashed? did i misquote you? no. you said those exact words and i said those exact words. nothing was taken out of context. you can't even address the post with any substance.

but you're such a hateful troll you just can't admit it, so you lie and claimed i mish mashed.

you're a loser jake. when you get caught being wrong, you can't admit it, so you call the other person a loser, even when that person agrees with you on the issue. what the fuck is wrong with you? you're pathological. you're very close to going back on ignore.

 

[Yurt]

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

where is the mish mash jake?

 

[Yurt]

clayton, can states violate your civil rights?

yes or no.