|
CharlesMartel
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: May 28, 2008, 05:53:06 AM » |
|
Is referring to someone as 'Frenchy' an insult in your mind? Something tells me DOMA escapes many...as I yank the conversation back to the topic of conversation rather than the trolled tangents we often get off on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #76 on: May 28, 2008, 05:54:17 AM » |
|
I love our posters, I really do. I love the French. Great people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cass
|
|
« Reply #77 on: May 28, 2008, 10:54:41 AM » |
|
Reality check. There is no confirmation as yet whether the proposed initiative for a CA Constitutional change has as yet officially made the November ballot. I believe it will. However, a new Field Poll, appears to show that attitudes in CA have changed. The article regarding this poll can be found here with a link to the poll on a pdf. http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/ci_9399313 While some suggest having this initiative on the ballot will bring out the rabid right wing in CA, it may do quite the opposite and create serious issues for McCain. It will be difficult for him to explain his flip flops on this issue contained in his voting record. The CA GOP is typically far right of even the RNC. If McCain supports the initiative he will be flip flopping once more. If he chooses to stay with the "states rights" position, his CA GOP supporters who might vote for him purely because of the (R) by his name, may then choose to stay at home. The group attempting the initiative have asked the CA Supremes for a stay, but no decision has been made yet. In addition, without a stay, marriages will take place according to most news after mid-June. Since the CA decisions are forward looking those marriages will be legal in CA. Arnold has stated not only will he not support the initiative, but will work against it and made that explanation to the CA Log Cabin GOP while representing McCain with that group. And in addition, always thinking about the CA economy which is clearly in the tank, he has invited same sex couples to come to CA and get married as it will help the economy. It should also be noted that unlike the primaries, the winner of the general election in CA for the purpose of establishing the Electors is a winner take all. While some might suggest this issue will bring CA GOP voters to the polls, I would suggest it will do just the opposite and be a negative for McCain. But IMHO McCain has little chance in big blue CA. The consequence just creates another problem for McCain. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\" Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator
The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #78 on: May 28, 2008, 12:00:27 PM » |
|
Something tells me DOMA escapes many...as I yank the conversation back to the topic of conversation rather than the trolled tangents we often get off on.
We've all heard of it. But it's questionable whether it is enforceable under the constitution. And it doesn't seem to me that it effects policy inside a state at all. The national government and other states don't have to accept gay marriage, but I don't read it as saying a state can't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cass
|
|
« Reply #79 on: May 28, 2008, 12:15:36 PM » |
|
DOMA to date shows little chance of becoming as proposed a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Marriage, historically and presently, without the establishment of DOMA remains one of those aspects under the Constitution left to the states. The
introduction of DOMA was as much as anything a red herring introduced for the purpose of an extraneous issue for the 2004
re-election of Bush.
Would the current SCROTUS, especially considering the GOP propensity to attempt to return privacy issues to the states, EG. Roe v Wade. It would be counter productive to push for the establishment of DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment. But it is interesting to speculate. A major difference in the CA and Federal Constitutions is the right to privacy, while established as implied in the U.S. Constitution, is clearly written into the CA Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\" Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator
The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2008, 12:17:32 PM » |
|
DOMA to date shows little chance of becoming as proposed a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Marriage, historically and presently, without the establishment of DOMA remains one of those aspects under the Constitution left to the states. DOMA ensures the states get their say in the matter and don't need to recognize same sex marriages outside their border. The introduction of DOMA was as much as anything a red herring introduced for the purpose of an extraneous issue for the 2004 re-election of Bush. DOMA was signed by President Clinton, no? Would the current SCROTUS, especially considering the GOP propensity to attempt to return privacy issues to the states, EG. Roe v Wade. It would be counter productive to push for the establishment of DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment. But it is interesting to speculate. A major difference in the CA and Federal Constitutions is the right to privacy, while established as implied in the U.S. Constitution, is clearly written into the CA Constitution.
I'm hearing a lot of Repub bashing here, we must forget DOMA and the overwhelming vote it was passed by. The Senate voted 85-14. Huge mega-stars of the Dem Party such as Joe Lieberman who ran on Gore's 2000 ticket, Joe Biden, who ran for President this year. and Harry Reid voted YES on DOMA. Harry Reid none other than the Majority Leader in the Senate, is he held accountable, considered to be trying to give privacy issues back to the states? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2008, 03:57:36 PM » |
|
You mistake my appeal target. Not my God, but my nation. DOMA is reality. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Any ruling, regulation, or interpretation seems fairly clear to me, Frenchy. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. oops! Note the lack of orientation here as well. Consider yourself schooled, Frenchy. You were unaware of this law....yes? You are obviously unaware of the judiciary act of 1789 you are the ignorant one who has been schooled Char Mar. If your appeal was to your nation then why did you exclaim "Oh my god"?? To make statements like "legislating from the bench" you are either ignorant of the functions of the branches of government or you have contemt for the constitution ,or both. Calling me Frenchy doesn't bother me at all, but it does demonstrate your childish intelect and lack of debating skill. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2008, 05:46:52 AM » |
|
You are obviously unaware of the judiciary act of 1789 you are the ignorant one who has been schooled Char Mar.
If your appeal was to your nation then why did you exclaim "Oh my god"??
To make statements like "legislating from the bench" you are either ignorant of the functions of the branches of government or you have contemt for the constitution ,or both. Being aware is exactly why many states returned to amend their Constitutions. Being aware is why we're fully prepared when Californian Courts legislate from the bench, unlike New York, we don't recognize same sex marriages(like many many other states) and we're not required to recognize others....on the count of a law you had never heard of before. Furthermore, politicians you're not opposed to don't take heat on this issue when they vote more in line with me...proving beyond a doubt this is a political issue....targeting my right to define my own societal institutions. Calling me Frenchy doesn't bother me at all Then quit whining about it. Tulip. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +157/-117
Posts: 2,142
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2008, 06:01:52 AM » |
|
Calling me Frenchy doesn't bother me at all Then quit whining about it. Tulip. Seriously, how old are you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2008, 07:04:10 AM » |
|
Calling me Frenchy doesn't bother me at all Then quit whining about it. Tulip. Seriously, how old are you? Intelectually I would say he's about 13. Seriously its like debating Pee Wee Herman. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2008, 07:10:14 AM » |
|
Seriously, how old are you? Woa...that sure isn't a typical question from a troll. How many questions must I answer, I'm merely trying to cross your lil bridge here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2008, 07:14:23 AM » |
|
Intelectually I would say he's about 13.
Seriously its like debating Pee Wee Herman.
It seems Pee Wee has forgotten more laws than you uninformed liberals ever learned. Read the DOMA again, look to who signed it, and realize why my state doesn't have to accept the ridiculous bench legislation coming from California. New York pipes up...some announcement from the governor. We the People in order to form a more perfect union has been forgotten by these lost souls, I'm not even sure you two trolls are even aware much less realize why your gay agendas won't infect other states. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +157/-117
Posts: 2,142
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2008, 11:42:57 AM » |
|
Troll? Wow. Your the one that calls people 'tulip' and 'frenchy', but I'm trolling? You are funny guy. Not too bright evidently because you go out of your way to be an asshole to one of the four people that could ban you, but whatever. I was asking how old you were because I hadn't thought calling someone a flower was funny since I was in the seventh grade. I guess what passes for humor, or a good insult just isn't what it used to be. But essentially I guess it IS my bridge because if you troll enough, I will ban you.
P.S. Asking why you are such an immature poster does not correspond to supporting any particular agenda. Other than the 'Quality Posting Agenda'. Bleat about it all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 11:51:16 AM by Biker Dude »
|
Logged
|
Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about?
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2008, 01:41:33 PM » |
|
So it isn't about gays its about legislating from the bench. I show you that the judiciary has all the power and duty by the law of the constitution to overturn law that is not consistant with the bill of rights ...and then it is about state powers. I bring up the judiciary powers act again and now its about your right to define marriage. Some more adolescent name calling and the issue is about biker dude and I having a "gay agenda" and being "trolls"? I must say I have never seen anyone stupid enough to call a forum administrator a troll after having posted for what... two weeks?? Amazing stupidity  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 01:44:35 PM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #89 on: May 30, 2008, 01:44:29 PM » |
|
Troll? Wow. Your the one that calls people 'tulip' and 'frenchy', but I'm trolling? You are funny guy. Not too bright evidently because you go out of your way to be an asshole to one of the four people that could ban you, but whatever. I was asking how old you were because I hadn't thought calling someone a flower was funny since I was in the seventh grade. I guess what passes for humor, or a good insult just isn't what it used to be. But essentially I guess it IS my bridge because if you troll enough, I will ban you.
P.S. Asking why you are such an immature poster does not correspond to supporting any particular agenda. Other than the 'Quality Posting Agenda'. Bleat about it all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
I'm sorry, I merely have not seen you..in a post to me....address my argument. Questions about my age and other irrelevant queries is all I've seen. I define this as trolling. I simply cannot do anything about you banning me should I consider that my definition. My age is irrelevant here in my opinion. And...as you're a moderator, my bannig certainly wouldn't be the result of refusing to disclose such irrelvant info. Additionally, I believe it is you calling me an "asshole" in this last post, does that warrant any kind of warning or would that not be defined as trolling either...cause...I'd disagree with you. However. Your rules, I'll abide by them |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
