Heller Struck Down

[Shogun]

Link, please.

are you fucking kidding me, Ravi? do you doubt that polygamy is illegal in Utah and the Fed has no intention of overturning such?

really?

 

[Shogun]

What are you talking about? the Loving case? He's totally and unequivocally wrong.

Tell me, Kathianne, do you think McCain will be whining about judicial review of legislation today? Or is it only judicial activism when the other side of the bench strikes down legislation?

BTW, there's no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution.

Bullshit, Jillian. Which is why Utah still makes THEIR "civil right of marriage" illegal for multiple partners, eh? Don't blame me if I'm mopping the floor with your legal degree. strawmanning with Mccain wont make your laughable interpretation of Loving any more applicable to gays than it isn't with polygamists.


go scream bloody fucking hell to Antonin Scalia, yo.

 

[jillian]

Bullshit, Jillian. Which is why Utah still makes THEIR "civil right of marriage" illegal for multiple partners, eh? Don't blame me if I'm mopping the floor with your legal degree. strawmanning with Mccain wont make your laughable interpretation of Loving any more applicable to gays than it isn't with polygamists.


go scream bloody fucking hell to Antonin Scalia, yo.

You're confusing issues again, honey. Go back a step. Try to get your thoughts straight.

Loving determined that marriage is a fundamental right. Once you accept that, we can go over all of your other fallacies.

The only strawmen here, honey, are yours.

The one truth is that you don't know how to read a case if it doesn't agree with what you want it to say.

 

[Ravi]

are you fucking kidding me, Ravi? do you doubt that polygamy is illegal in Utah and the Fed has no intention of overturning such?

really?

I want to see exactly how they used the 10th. Can you link it or not?

 

[Shogun]

You're confusing issues again, honey. Go back a step. Try to get your thoughts straight.

Loving determined that marriage is a fundamental right. Once you accept that, we can go over all of your other fallacies.

The only strawmen here, honey, are yours.

The one truth is that you don't know how to read a case if it doesn't agree with what you want it to say.

NO, it really didn't. Your condescending attitude, while cute, won't make it true. I won't accept it because that's simply not the case. Utah proves it. Screaming strawmen while hoping that no one remembers that polygamy is illegal in light of your "marriage is a civil right" is rich as hell, Jillian. Clearly, I should have gone to law school. For christs sake, IM the one quoting the fucking case verdict instead of posting some minimal link hoping that no one will actually check it for validity.


You cannot seperate the verdict of Loving from it's specific racial element since it was the 14th fucking amendment that was used to pen the damn thing. Read beyond the first ten words, Jillian. And then share your little rant with Warren Jeffs. It's a goddamn knee slapper that you think Loving validated any concept of marriage despite the fact of fucking Utah.

You know, A STATE TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT..

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Shogun is on pretty solid ground. Several of the posters here were cited by both majority and minority of SCOTUS. It's the minority that was going for 'interpretative', the majority was text orientated.

http://volokh.com/

SnowGums, says there is no right to marriage and in the case he points out: Loving, it specifically mentions the right of marriage.


the solid ground is in your mind only

 

[Ravi]

Come on, Shog, please provide the link. The 2006 Federal Marriage Amendment included banning polygamy so I'm guessing the Republicans don't think the 10th bans it either.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Bullshit, Jillian. Which is why Utah still makes THEIR "civil right of marriage" illegal for multiple partners, eh? Don't blame me if I'm mopping the floor with your legal degree. strawmanning with Mccain wont make your laughable interpretation of Loving any more applicable to gays than it isn't with polygamists.


go scream bloody fucking hell to Antonin Scalia, yo.

the right to marry is between two people. as a civil law it recognizes the union of two people as a unit or a union if you like. polygamy does not fit. it requires one person have multiple unions and the state only grants one. bigamy is a crime because it is a breaking of the legal vow of the union of the couple.

 

[Shogun]

I want to see exactly how they used the 10th. Can you link it or not?

Ravikins, every state is using the tenth when deciding their own marriage rules. Would you like to review the bill of rights again or would you rather continue dragging your feet. I assure you, purposeful ignorance won't make polygamy any more legal in Utah than Nevada holds high standards for their licenses.





The Edmunds Act, is United States federal legislation, signed into law on March 23, 1882, declaring polygamy a felony. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked the polygamists right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.
Edmunds Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

the right to marry is between two people. as a civil law it recognizes the union of tow people as a unit. polygamy does not fit. it requires one person have multiple unions and the state only grants one. bigamy is a crime because it is a breaking of the legal vow of the union of the couple.

Probably why he refuses the link.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

I want to see exactly how they used the 10th. Can you link it or not?

SnowGums, will not and cannot answer because his mouth is full of sh!t.

 

[Shogun]

SnowGums, says there is no right to marriage and in the case he points out: Loving, it specifically mentions the right of marriage.


the solid ground is in your mind only

In regards to the RACIAL ELEMENT SPECIFICALLY STATED.


I'll invite you to share you nutter opinon with warren jeffs too, brainiac. You both will share a laugh about the supposed "civil right" of marriage and equal application thereof.

 

[manifold]

I present a metaphorical representation of Shogun's performance on this thread (0:05 seconds)

[youtube]pQkTlr9afR4[/youtube]

 

[Ravi]

Ravikins, every state is using the tenth when deciding their own marriage rules. Would you like to review the bill of rights again or would you rather continue dragging your feet. I assure you, purposeful ignorance won't make polygamy any more legal in Utah than Nevada holds high standards for their licenses.





The Edmunds Act, is United States federal legislation, signed into law on March 23, 1882, declaring polygamy a felony. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked the polygamists right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.
Edmunds Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read that and it doesn't use the 10th that I can see. A federal law was passed...um...

 

[Shogun]

Come on, Shog, please provide the link. The 2006 Federal Marriage Amendment included banning polygamy so I'm guessing the Republicans don't think the 10th bans it either.

eh? more like simple clarification given the lack of legal comprehension of people like you.


Do you REALLY think a defense of marraige act will keep losing? Is this the apparent pattern you see when a solid third of the states have already amended their constitions?


without ANY regard for some supposed "civil right" of marriage, no less?

 

[Shogun]

the right to marry is between two people. as a civil law it recognizes the union of two people as a unit or a union if you like. polygamy does not fit. it requires one person have multiple unions and the state only grants one. bigamy is a crime because it is a breaking of the legal vow of the union of the couple.

well that certainly is YOUR opinion, isn't it? Gosh, if only the US operated according to your atrophied brain instead of, you know, that pesky fucking constitution!




Come on, pussy, don't dodge and weave NOW! Tell me how Loving validated marriage as a civil right without having to apply your OWN astrix the the fucking verdict...

 

[Shogun]

Probably why he refuses the link.

well that, or I was busy hiring 3 people in the time you could have been educating yourself....


poor girl.. ignorance is bliss, eh?

 

[Ravi]

eh? more like simple clarification given the lack of legal comprehension of people like you.


Do you REALLY think a defense of marraige act will keep losing? Is this the apparent pattern you see when a solid third of the states have already amended their constitions?


without ANY regard for some supposed "civil right" of marriage, no less?

Is it actually possible for you to cough up the evidence?

I do think the attempt to make a federal constitutional amendment to deny people their rights will fail over and over again. If it didn't get through when Bush and his cohorts had a stranglehold on the country it has no chance any other time.

 

[Shogun]

SnowGums, will not and cannot answer because his mouth is full of sh!t.

I've been running laps around you this whole thread, dude... Feel free to read only the first ten words of any given piece of evidence though.. I hear polygamists agree with you!

 

[Shogun]

I present a metaphorical representation of Shogun's performance on this thread (0:05 seconds)

[youtube]pQkTlr9afR4[/youtube]

oh well THATS new.. Mani running to the aid of a wickedly insufficient Ravi.

WOW.

Next thing you know you'll both be pos repping each other 30 times.





Feel free to post your own Evidence, Mani.. Or, post one of those profound polls or something equally indicative.