|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Yeah, you do want a verbal war,, you don't know what I want.. you have no idea what I believe., Drop it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Honestly have you ever read the Constitution? The 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause?
The Constitution applies to every law within the jurisdiction of the United States. You keep trying to say the law as wrote...it should be the law as wrote subject to the U.S. Constitution. The matter as judged subject to the U.S. Constitution.
No law or contract within the United States can ever make it so the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply. You can waive some rights of course, but that's not what happened here. This isn't a contract issue. This is discrimination against a class of persons, the very thing the 14th amendment is meant to stop. What part of there is an exception to the rule for which a gay person could never use don't you see? That's the story, that's the issue. To answer your question if she wasn't gay it wouldn't be a story because she could make use of the exception. Same if gay people could get married, she could make use of her exception. The only reason she cannot make use of the exception is because she is homosexual. That is textbook discrimination. Are the 60s so easily forgotten? If you can't see the discrimination issue then you're very short sighted or you have a vendetta against gay people.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Loki, I get what your saying,, for me it's more or less, hey, you agreed to this and that's that. But I, like a few others, think that reasonable minds can come to a solution that meets all/most needs.
Maybe that's asking to much.. dunno
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Loki, I get what your saying,, for me it's more or less, hey, you agreed to this and that's that
Did blacks agree to Jim Crow Laws? Did blacks agree to separate but equal? Or did the majority, white men, enforce the rules and exceptions onto a class, race, which prevented them for availing themselves of the same rights of the majority?
Put another way did the majority, heterosexuals, enforce a rule and exception, marriage, which prevented them from availing themselves, homosexuals, from availing themselves of the same rights of the majority?
This is discrimination, however, not all discrimination is bad. Non-lawyers are not allowed to practice law, a 21 year old cannot become president, and you cannot drive without a drivers license. Those are all examples of discrimination. The real issue is whether homosexuals are a class of persons who deserve protection like race, national origin, gender..etc. I say absolutely they do.
If you want to be a bigot and say gays don't deserves the same rights that's fine; I'll even defend your right to make that opinion known. However to pretend there isn't discrimination is just asinine.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Quote:
Did blacks agree to Jim Crow Laws? Did blacks agree to separate but equal?
No and they weren't really given a choice to agree or disagree with those things. that's the difference here. The wife didn't have to agree to this.. She could have fought for different terms.
She signed it, it's the deal she agreed to. having said that, I don't believe there should be any agreement that tells a person who they can love or marry.
Again,, I'd like to think that a compromise could be reached., but I guess not.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Honestly have you ever read the Constitution? The 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause?
The Constitution applies to every law within the jurisdiction of the United States. You keep trying to say the law as wrote...it should be the law as wrote subject to the U.S. Constitution. The matter as judged subject to the U.S. Constitution.
No law or contract within the United States can ever make it so the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply. You can waive some rights of course, but that's not what happened here. This isn't a contract issue. This is discrimination against a class of persons, the very thing the 14th amendment is meant to stop. What part of there is an exception to the rule for which a gay person could never use don't you see? That's the story, that's the issue. To answer your question if she wasn't gay it wouldn't be a story because she could make use of the exception. Same if gay people could get married, she could make use of her exception. The only reason she cannot make use of the exception is because she is homosexual. That is textbook discrimination. Are the 60s so easily forgotten? If you can't see the discrimination issue then you're very short sighted or you have a vendetta against gay people.
What is the discrimination? What is the constitutional infringement?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
What is the discrimination? What is the constitutional infringement?
Really? I've said it multiple times, purp said it, and Jay even explained it.
There is exception which voids the morality clause. The exception can be used by the majority, heterosexuals. A class of persons, homosexuals, can never use that exception. That is the discrimination.
The infringement is upon the 14th amendment It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The only issue is whether gay people are a class of persons whom the U.S. Constitutional does or does not allow discrimination. I believe they do. I answered your questions answer mine:
In your eyes should gay couples who would if able or are married receive the same legal rights, no one is forcing churches to marry this is just legal rights ie being able to use the exception, as heterosexual couples who are married? Why or why not?
To Daman: It appears that the morality clause was agreed upon but she never agreed that she shouldn't be allowed to be married nor did she agree that the exception should only cover heterosexuals. Maybe she wanted to morality clause to stop her husband from some of issues brought up. Either I doubt she ever agreed to being prevented from being married or using the exception. If there is evidence to contrary please show me.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
It is obvious from your statements that a great wrong is being perpetrated and we must address this ASAP.
A "law degree" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can practice law. There must be no discrimination.
"Maturity" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can become president. There must be no discrimination.
A "Driver's License" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can drive. There must be no discrimination.
Is it possible that there are very good reasons why the above "rights" are carefully defined, with specific requirements spelled out? Is the mere fact that some people will not fulfill those requirements and be excluded sufficient to demand a change to the specification?
Will you use the loaded term "bigot" to describe any and all who insist on certain basic qualifications? Will you say " you don't want blind people to drive, you must hate all blind people, you bigot!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
A "law degree" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can practice law. There must be no discrimination.
"Maturity" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can become president. There must be no discrimination.
A "Driver's License" must be re-defined so that EVERYONE can drive. There must be no discrimination.
Quote:
This is discrimination, however, not all discrimination is bad. Non-lawyers are not allowed to practice law, a 21 year old cannot become president, and you cannot drive without a drivers license. Those are all examples of discrimination. The real issue is whether homosexuals are a class of persons who deserve protection like race, national origin, gender..etc. I say absolutely they do.
Next...
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
What is the discrimination? What is the constitutional infringement?
Really? I've said it multiple times, purp said it, and Jay even explained it.
There is exception which voids the morality clause. The exception can be used by the majority, heterosexuals. A class of persons, homosexuals, can never use that exception. That is the discrimination.
Except that this instance has nothing to do with marriage. You don't know that the women even desires to marry her partner, now or ever. Even so, did she not know that was in there? So she didn't read a contract she signed?
Shouldn't the time to argue the discrimination of the clause been before signing?
Quote:
The infringement is upon the 14th amendment It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Great, then take up a cause to challenge the state of Texas, BEFORE you sign a contract you disagree with, or pay all the legal fees that go along with fighting it in federal court.
Quote:
The only issue is whether gay people are a class of persons whom the U.S. Constitutional does or does not allow discrimination. I believe they do. I answered your questions answer mine:
In your eyes should gay couples who would if able or are married receive the same legal rights, no one is forcing churches to marry this is just legal rights ie being able to use the exception, as heterosexual couples who are married? Why or why not?
I don't care if gay couples wish to be married, civil union, or whatever you wish to call it. Why the states make such a big deal of it I really don't know. If they wish to marry, pay the taxes, deal with the expectations of any other married couple, then have at it.
Quote:
To Daman: It appears that the morality clause was agreed upon but she never agreed that she shouldn't be allowed to be married nor did she agree that the exception should only cover heterosexuals. Maybe she wanted to morality clause to stop her husband from some of issues brought up. Either I doubt she ever agreed to being prevented from being married or using the exception. If there is evidence to contrary please show me.
If the language was in the contract when she signed, then she DID agree to the "morality" clause, or else she should have asked for it to be exempted, rewritten or whatever.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Now with that all said....
“is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.”
This I agree with, and the clause should be removed or reworded, as more and more people are choosing to forego second marriages in favor of just cohabitating.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
The clause is a standing order in Collin County, where this took place. She could not have simply asked for it to be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187 |
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it". 
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it. 
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it".
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it.
Ahhh....the progressive style of interaction really is a thing of beauty. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it".
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it.
Ahhh....the progressive style of interaction really is a thing of beauty.
Yes sir, unlike the ugly regressive style of interaction that the radicalized right wingers use, that is taking themselves back a century or two. 
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it".
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it.
Ahhh....the progressive style of interaction really is a thing of beauty.
Yes sir, unlike the ugly regressive style of interaction that the radicalized right wingers use, that is taking themselves back a century or two.
Nope, not unlike that at all. Do you consider me a radicalized right winger?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,362 |
Quote:
Do you consider me a radicalized right winger?
Eh, more Right of Center....
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
jf, you sir are a master baiter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it.
Don't worry, some of us understand our place in the kinder gentler liberal utopia.. it is not our job to question what you want to do, it is just our job to pay for it. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it".
You along with the evangelical, teabagger nut jobs, and the NRA disagree with any and all legislation that has anything to do with common sense. And are all for any and all hate biased legistlation that forces their values on all. Got it.
Ahhh....the progressive style of interaction really is a thing of beauty.
Yes sir, unlike the ugly regressive style of interaction that the radicalized right wingers use, that is taking themselves back a century or two.
Nope, not unlike that at all. Do you consider me a radicalized right winger?
Yes. 
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Texas judge says lesbian couple
can’t cohabitate
|
|
