Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2667
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

8123 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2667 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | » | Last
 
  2010-07-17 01:57:00 AM  
By the way, it helps to remember that the people (society) make up the government in the United States, so voters are held to the same standards as legislatures.
 
  2010-07-17 07:23:34 PM  
Herb "states can attempt to make any laws they want, but they cannot trump federal laws or bypass US Constitutional standards."

Well what federal law does my states constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman violate?

And what part of The US Constitution is violated with that same constitutional amendment? (I've been over the whole "equal protection clause" several times and it is not violated with my states amendment)

Every state has different standards on who can or who cannot marry. Each one of them standards is based on how the people of that state feel marriage should be defined. One state defines marriage as X while another state defines marriage as Y. So give me a good reason why one state defines marriage as X but another state defines marriage as Y. There is no good reason. It is just how the people of that state want to define marriage.

As the judge that Bonnie mentioned said, "the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married".

It is up to the states to define marriage. I'm sorry if you do not like how my state defines it but it is up to the states.
 
  2010-07-17 08:21:06 PM  
From the above article:

Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.


And this is why those arguments can't hold out much longer. The fact that it is inevitable that all laws against same-sex marriage will be overturned in the U.S. means that all of those laws are wrong right now. You're arguing a moot point.
 
  2010-07-18 04:00:22 AM  
"That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world" ---John Adams

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.
 
  2010-07-18 04:39:42 PM  
Herb saying that it is "inevitable that all laws against same-sex marriage will be overturned in the U.S." is not an argument for why gays should be allowed to marry right now.

I've said before that I don't doubt that at some point in the future society will change how they view gay marriage and same-sex marriages will become acceptable by society. When that happens, gays will be able to marry. That does not mean that bans on gay marriage are wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, whatever. It just means that at this point in history, same-sex marriages are not acceptable to society. And since it is up to society to define marriage, it is being defined as being between one man and one woman.

And this whole argument that you can't treat people differently has been covered by me already.

A gay man is allowed to do the same thing that a straight man is allowed to do. He may not want to do it but he is allowed to. If the law somehow said that a gay man CANNOT marry a woman then you would have people being treated differently.

It is up to the states do define marriage.

I'm sorry that you do not like how my state and 29 others have defined it.
 
  2010-07-18 07:51:18 PM  
Haha dottedmint, I'm all out of parrot food. Have a good one.
 
  2010-07-18 09:50:47 PM  
I could say the same thing to you Herb.
 
  2010-07-20 01:30:00 AM  
Herb Utsmelz: I'm all out of parrot food.

ha! noshiat.
 
  2010-07-21 07:12:15 AM  
Bonnie, I'm not sure that someone who has been just repeating what others have said should be laughing at a parrot joke.

One of your own posts points that it is the right of the state to decide how they will or will not define marriage.

If you do not like how they define it, then change how society feels.
 
  2010-07-21 01:19:20 PM  
RELEVANT (new window)
 
  2010-07-23 01:59:19 AM  
To Be Announced: RELEVANT (new window)

So we can take our country back..

To pre-indoor plumbing!


Couple of funny bits, which I do appreciate. Loved the Palin mock-up at the end but felt the costume should be better. She is known for her rimless glasses and for deserting her governorship of the state of Alaska.

Do I agree with the overall message? Yes.

Thanks for the contribution. Nice to have visitors drop in.
 
  2010-07-27 07:07:48 PM  
"Why Dummies Want to Forget the Tea Party Ancestry "

Hmmm... I didn't see any mention of the actual origional "tea party".

Maybe I missed it.
 
  2010-07-28 04:36:38 PM  
Judge Susan Bolton is a registered independent in Maricopa County. She was appointed to the federal court on Oct. 20, 2000, as an independent. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.
 
  2010-07-29 09:42:35 AM  
If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government's ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state's enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law.

oof. That's going to leave a mark.
 
  2010-07-29 08:12:12 PM  
Right Bonnie...

Even though the state law is basically the same as the federal law, it somehow interfers with the federal law.

That's logical.

You do understand Bonnie that just because a judge rules a certain way does not mean it is the right way?
 
  2010-07-30 04:29:11 PM  
When it comes down to the will of the people versus what's right, I'll take the ruling from a judge who is learned in what's right every time.

Intelligence must rule, and as much as some loathe to admit it, there are just too many stupid voters and lawmakers. Like it or not, the views of society can't always prevail.

Welcome to the truth. You're allowed to have a different opinion. But you'd be wrong.
 
  2010-07-30 06:45:03 PM  
The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government.

It is as if some have never read the Constitution of the United States or perhaps it is merely a comprehension issue and not one of just ignorance.
 
  2010-07-30 07:25:26 PM  
Soup4Bonnie: It is as if some have never read the Constitution of the United States or perhaps it is merely a comprehension issue and not one of just ignorance.


Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
 
  2010-08-02 04:45:11 PM  
And guess what Herb. There are also stupid judges who make stupid rulings. I'm sorry but there are.

I realize that a state law cannot trump federal law.

Show me how the Arizona law somehow trumps federal law. What does the state law call for that federal law does not call for? Is the state law in any way harsher than the federal law?

And you had me going for a bit until I saw that it was from The Onion. Then I realized it was just a spoof.
 
  2010-08-02 05:17:51 PM  
dottedmint: just a spoof

Based on countless true stories..
 
  2010-08-03 12:13:16 AM  
"Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context" - stupid Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." - stupid US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro

"The initiative thus would take away from those individuals a civil right that the Council has seen fit to recognize and expressly allow, and its effect would be to authorize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." - stupid DC Court of Appeals

(Fark won't link)

http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/10-CV-20_JACKSON_MTD.PDF
 
  2010-08-03 04:54:38 PM  
I'll ask again...

How does the Arizona law trump federal law?

What part of the state law interfers with federal law?

And Bonnie aren't you quoting the same juge that said the federal ban interfers with the states rights to define marriage?

Well...

My state defined marriage as one man and one woman.

If you do not think there are stupid judges out there, you have not been paying attention.
 
  2010-08-05 02:30:38 PM  
CONCLUSION


Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?
 
  2010-08-05 04:47:42 PM  
Um Bonnie...

You quote one judge that says states have a right to define marriage and you hail that because he struck down DOMA.

Now, you quote another judge that says states do NOT have a right to define marriage and you hail that because he strikes down a gay marriage ban in CA.

Perhaps you can tell me if judge A or judge B is correct in their ruling.

Do states have a right to define marriage (as the first judge you quoted said) or do states NOT have a right to define marriage (as the latest judge you quoted said)?

They both can't be right.

And about this "constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis"...

Um...

I've gone over this many many times.

A gay man is allowed to do the same thing a straight man is allowed to do. That is to marry a woman.

I would have loved to ask this judge if he feels a man has a right to marry his sister.

BTW...

I'm sure there was no conflict of interest in a gay judge overturning a ban on gay marriage.
 
  2010-08-05 08:27:46 PM  
THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) ("[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right" and marriage is an "expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment."); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) ("The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) ("Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."). The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right. To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted "in our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices." Glucksberg, 521 US at 710. Here, because the right to marry is fundamental, the court looks to the evidence presented at trial to determine: (1) the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States; and (2) whether plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to marry or seek to exercise some other right. Id.

Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States. See FF 19, 34-35. Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. 20, 34. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. FF 34-35, 37. The state regulates marriage because FF marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37. The state respects an individual's choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual's life. See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting).
 
  2010-08-06 04:48:17 PM  
Since you seem to want to ignore the conflict in the rulings that you have quoted I will ask you again.

Do states have a right to define marriage (as the first judge you quoted said) or do states NOT have a right to define marriage (as this latest judge you quoted said)?

They can't both be right.

Who gets to define marriage?

Judges?

Thats not their job.
 
  2010-08-06 06:43:20 PM  
Mexico's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Mexico City law that legalized same-sex marriage. In an 8-2 vote, the high court found the law, which went into effect in March, constitutional.

Some days it's just not your week.
 
  2010-08-07 10:37:55 AM  
The best aspect of the legal system? Higher court judges can overturn voters but voters cannot overturn judges' rulings.

Intelligence 1, Ignorance 0. Set and match.
 
  2010-08-08 05:38:57 PM  
Right...

One judge can overturn the will of the majority, not based on what The Constitution actually says, but instead based on what he THINKS The Constitution should say.

The Constitution does NOT say that gays have a right to marry. I'm sorry but it does not. The 10th Amendment leaves the definition of marriage up to the states to decide.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The equal protection clause says that laws will be applied to everyone equally. "nor (shall the states) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

All that means is that a law will be applied to one person the same that it will be applied to another person. Marriage laws are applied equally to a gay man the same way it is applied to a straight man. They say that a man can marry a woman. Just because a man wants to marry another man does not mean he has a right to. The law is applied equally.

The law says that I can drive 65 mph down the highway. It says that everyone can drive that fast. Just because I want to drive 95 mph down the highway does not mean I have a right to. The law is applied equally.

Again...

Tell me who has the right to define marriage. It is not a judges job to write laws.

The Constitution does not cover marriage. Therefore laws need to be written to define it and regulate it. This is up to lawmakers to do. Just because a judge thinks a law should say something else does not mean he has the power to simply change the law.

Judges are not meant to be super legislatures. They are not meant to decide for us how we live our lives. It is up to society to decide how we write our laws. As I've said before, if a state were to write a law that says gays can marry, I'd be fine with it. The problem I have is with activist judges overruling the will of the people based on what he THINKS The Constitution says.
 
  2010-08-08 06:06:46 PM  
dottedmint: I'd be fine with it.

Bullshiat. You're just another ignorant homophobe with fantasies about how the legal system should work, but you don't really know much about how it functions.

It takes some doing to get on my ignore list, but you've done it. I'll only listen to rational arguments in this forum from now on.
 
  2010-08-09 05:54:06 PM  
LOL.

I always find it funny when people resort to name calling. It really shows their intelligence. (or lack there of)

If you want judges to decide how our laws are written, thats fine. I'll find the most conservative, bible thumping judge out there and have him make all the rulings on gay marriage, abortion, whatever. We'll let him define marriage. I'm sure that would be fine with you. Right? After all we know judges never make bad rulings.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who gets to define marriage, since it is not actually in The US Constitution. Is it whatever we want? Is it whatever a judge wants? Who decides?

And for the record, I tried changing subjects to the Arizona immigration law but for some reason the topic came back to gay marriage.

I actually would have been happy to change the subject to just about anything but again we keep coming back to gay marriage.

And for the record, I do not have "fantasies about how the legal system should work". Judges are not meant to make law. This is no "fantasy". I also realize that there are judges who are not afraid to be activists in their rulings. They would rather 'look out for the little guy' when there job is to fairly make rulings on the law.

And why exactly am I a homophobe?

Because I think it should be up to society to define marriage?

Is that why I'm a homophobe?

I know you do not think I'm telling the truth but...

...if my state were to pass a law that said gays can marry I'd be fine with that.

...I think gays should be able to openly serve in the military.

...I think a gay couple should be able to adopt a child.

Heck...

If a gay man was running for President as a Conservative I'd vote for him.

But according to Herb, I'm a homophobe.

I wonder if the gay man that lives in the same house as me knows this.

Won't he be surprised when I tell him I'm a homophobe.

LOL
 
  2010-08-10 03:12:08 PM  
Sen. Stevens confirmed dead doing what he loved best; taking bribes. Crashed corporate jet belonged to telecom giant GCI
 
  2010-08-10 04:39:06 PM  
"I want your money"

Link (new window)
 
  2010-08-10 05:16:21 PM  
dottedmint: "Why Dummies Want to Forget the Tea Party Ancestry "

Hmmm... I didn't see any mention of the actual origional "tea party".

Maybe I missed it.


Probably because the event itself isn't really connected with the ethos of today's teabaggers. They are just using the name.
 
  2010-08-11 12:56:23 PM  
dottedmint: "I want your money"

In theaters everywhere this Fail!

We have had the pleasure of getting great interviews from economic experts and politicians including:

Mike Huckabee
Stephen Moore
Michael Reagan
William Voegeli
Star Parker
Kenneth Blackwell
Edwin Meese lll
Thad McCotter
Newt Gingrich
Lee Edwards
Pete Wilson
Steve Forbes
Gary Bauer
Kate Obenshain
Chris Edwards
David M. McIntosh
Lila Rose
John Stossel
Allen Icet
Rob Schaaf
John Stossel
Tom McClintock
Chris Edwards
Andrew Breitbart
George Runner
Alison Fraser



Why is John Stossel listed twice and which category does Andrew Breitbart fall under? Politician or economic expert?

I love the use of Reagan to illustrate the "small government" concept, too. Holy fark you people are in some serious denial. Oh, and Pete Wilson who shoveled money into Enron's hands by deregulated California's energy? Surely a champion you'd want to hold up and cheer. Ha ha ha! And NEWT! and Ed Meese?!!!

See you in November, chump.
 
  2010-08-11 01:09:18 PM  
Anyone who respects what Breitbart has to say has some serious problems with reality. He needs to crawl back under the rock from whence he came and stop trying to talk to humans.
 
  2010-08-11 07:41:43 PM  
Wow...

Instead of attacking the message both of you attack the messenger.

I would like to say I'm surprised but I'm not.

And who exactly would you have liked to have seen used to illustrate "small government"? Obama?!?!

"Probably because the event itself isn't really connected with the ethos of today's teabaggers."

Well, the first "teabaggers" (as you put it) were upset with taxes imposed by the British government.

The current "teabaggers" have many issues that they are concerned about including taxes.

So I guess I don't really see how the current "teabaggers" are less connected with the first "teabaggers" and somehow more connected with slave owners from the south.
 
  2010-08-12 11:57:36 AM  
dottedmint: "teabaggers" (as you put it)

As much as I would like to take credit for that moniker, I can't.

Since you are striving for accuracy in historical origins I will remind you that teabagger was a self-description coined by 'baggers themselves.

And a damn funny one. Especially when they used it on Fox News.
 
  2010-08-12 03:22:22 PM  
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
 
  2010-08-12 07:44:39 PM  
"Based on the trial record, which establishes that Proposition 8 violates plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights, the court cannot conclude that proponents have shown a likelihood of success on appeal," he wrote.

I'm a little disheartened by this as I had hoped this would be the case to make it to the Supreme Court and we would finally get a definitive ruling on this nonsense once and for all. Now it appears we will have to bring a challenge to each state's constitution before the knuckle-draggers realize you can't put someone's fundamental rights to a majority vote nor can you legislate them out of existence.
 
  2010-08-13 06:31:52 AM  
Bonnie, I'll ask again.

Who exactly would you have liked to have seen used to illustrate "small government"? Obama?!?!
 
  2010-08-13 11:26:55 AM  
dottedmint: Bonnie, I'll ask again.

Who exactly would you have liked to have seen used to illustrate " small government"? Obama?!?!


Oh please. The old "small government" drone has not been a meaningful talking point in decades. There is no such thing and never will be again.

However, I expect the conversation to continue with other ill-conceived rhetoric such as "my side is more fiscally responsible" etc. etc.
 
  2010-08-13 05:32:37 PM  
http://www.fark.com/cgi/users.pl?login=To%20Be%20Announced "The old "small government" drone has not been a meaningful talking point in decades. There is no such thing and never will be again."

I don't totally disagree with you. I'm not sure we have had true "small government" since perhaps the founding of this country. That said, who (in recent history) would you say better represents the "small government" idea than Reagan?

Obama? No.

Bush? No.

Clinton? No.

Bush? No.

Carter? No.

Ford? No.

Depending on how far back you want to go, I don't think there is anyone who better represents the "small (or at least smaller) government" idea than Reagan.

And can you tell me what would be a "fiscally responsible" policy for our government to undertake?
 
  2010-08-13 06:22:42 PM  
dottedmint: who (in recent history) would you say better represents the "small government" idea than Reagan?

You used the key word there: represents.

Reagan had a ton of charisma and was so charming and likeable that saying anything against The Great Teflon President™ was tantamount to assaulting someone's grandfather. Did he create a smaller government? No. But he did mention it in speeches, so if you want to call that representing, go ahead.

"And can you tell me what would be a "fiscally responsible" policy for our government to undertake?"

No, and neither can anyone else. I thought that was obvious.
 
  2010-08-15 04:18:56 PM  
To Be Announced "No, and neither can anyone else. I thought that was obvious."

Hmmm. I would have thought a policy of low taxes and low spending would be a good start for a "fiscally responsible" policy.

And that is just a start.

But you don't think anyone can come up with a "fiscally responsible" policy for the country?
 
  2010-08-16 11:26:22 AM  
dottedmint: Hmmm. I would have thought a policy of low taxes and low spending would be a good start for a "fiscally responsible" policy.


Wow. It is that simple? Now I wish I had thought of that. Someone needs to tell Congress and the White House because that is genius, my friend!

While we are at it, this archaic and polemic two-party system has got to go. Get on that too, would you?
 
  2010-08-16 05:02:41 PM  
To Be Announced: Since you are striving for accuracy in historical origins I will remind you that teabagger was a self-description coined by 'baggers themselves.

As near as I can tell, there was one 15-year-old boy who had a sign using the term, then it was used extensively and smirkily by a bunch of news anchors, then it was used innocently by the teatards themselves, then they found it what it meant to the frat-boy subculture and got indignant, and now they're waffling between indignation and taking it back ala porch monkey.
 
  2010-08-16 05:03:01 PM  
TBA when I asked if you could come up with a "fiscally responsible" policy for our government to undertake?" you said,

"No, and neither can anyone else. I thought that was obvious."

And yet I came up with a policy that I think would be fiscally responsible in less than a minute.

And instead of actually refuting the policy, you mock it.

The point is that it is not all that complex to come up with a policy.

I admit that it is not always simple to get a policy passed but that is a different issue.
 
  2010-08-16 05:17:44 PM  
dottedmint: And yet I came up with a policy that I think would be fiscally responsible in less than a minute.

That's a very broad and general policy - the devil's in the details.
 
  2010-08-16 06:27:29 PM  
dottedmint: TBA when I asked if you could come up with a "fiscally responsible" policy for our government to undertake?" you said,

"No, and neither can anyone else. I thought that was obvious."

And yet I came up with a policy that I think would be fiscally responsible in less than a minute.

And instead of actually refuting the policy, you mock it.

The point is that it is not all that complex to come up with a policy.

I admit that it is not always simple to get a policy passed but that is a different issue.



Exactly what goal are you looking to accomplish with this topic?
 
Displayed 50 of 2667 comments

First | « | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report