0
lawrocket

Ninth Circuit Finds Prop 8's Banning of Gay and Lesbian Marriage Unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

"There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests."


That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post is generally good, but I also believe that it hashes over problems. I myself don’t like spending money on “preemptive” wars. Nor do I like the thought of my kids being sent to a school that sucks ass when the school down the street has a better performance record. The two are not related, and the whole idea that because (a) sucks then (b) is okay because it sucks, too is an argument that I abhor.

The Common Good
There is such thing as a common good. And the common good has a nasty habit of screwing people. Individual rights, I’m afraid, are BAD for the common good. The common good means putting millions of people in prison for drug offenses. The common good means keeping “terrorists” in cells in Cuba without due process. The common good means picking losers. The common good is rarely invoked by someone wishing to sacrifice himself or herself but is most frequently argued by those wishing to victimize another. Yes, the “common” may benefit but the “common” loses something, that something being the loss of an individual freedom.

Take a look at the 9th Circuit opinion that is directly related to this post – a KEY ARGUMENT by the Prop 8 Proponents is that gays are bad for society because they cannot procreate as a married heterosexual couple. Recall that for eons, homosexuals were imprisoned. They were put in mental hospitals. They were lobotomized. Gay was not viewed as good for an orderly society.

Here’s where I test your moral courage, funjumper: Do you agree that gays should not be allowed to marry? The common good has been stated, and the Prop 8 IS the policy statement from the people of the State of California. It was passed in an ELECTION - direct democracy. The will of the people. The common good.

So answer the question – we know that the common good is that gays should not be allowed to marry. It’s policy. Will you assist the common good in stomping out gay marriage once and for all?

I suspect that you will answer “no.” I which case I will be the first to condemn you as being what you claim to despise – SELFISH. It is my belief that you support “the common good” so long as “the common good” is what YOU PERSONALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE. In other words, some forms of common good (i.e., institutionalizing homosexuals) are not acceptable to you but other forms of common good, where the individual must yield to the will of society, are good.

I’m telling you this – I am NOT a person who puts orderly society and common good above the rights of the individual. In fact, your argument that the common good is an overreaching thought about the ideals of the country is wrong. You realize that the country was founded due to a revolution because this nation’s founders came to the conclusion that it SUCKED yielding to the whims of the government. Remember the whole “Tea Tax” issue? The individual rights of the Colonists being overtaken by the desire for an orderly society as decided by the government of England? Yeah.

America was founded on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. And individual rights are anathema to the common good. Period.

A society that values “common good” over “individual rights” is EXACTLY the society that would ban gay marriage. The key argument made by proponents of the Prop 8 was about the common good. It's why we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. It ensures that individual liberties do not yield to the common good. (When it's followed - the common good sure was a great thing for Japanese Americans in WWII, wasn't it?)

I believe that you are being intellectually dishonest. Your positions cannot be reconciled. So I ask you to pick one: is it okay to ban gay marriage if it is for the common good? Or do you believe that nobody should have the right to define the common good?

I pick the latter.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dagnabbit, you keep putting good stuff out there that makes me actually think.

Personally, I do think that there is a concept such as "common good." It's messy, though, and it evolves with the times -- segregation used to be part of the "common good." What the people do in voting is help to decide what's part of it, and they maintain their right to disagree with the public definition -- protest is a well-protected activity in most of the US.

So, yes, in voting prop 8, the public of California established what they consider to be a common good. And now the 9th has said that "sorry, it's too late -- you can'ttake away rights once given, even based on that common good."

It's still a balance. My personal good might be best served by purely selfish activities, but then my environment will probably suffer more than my ability to make up for it with coccooning myself into my own little world.

The short term says "fuck-em." The long term (and my values) say "gotta pitch in, and I'm not always hte best judge of what someone else needs."

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The people who peceive the "need" to put their children in private school are free to do so. It makes no sense at all that they should receive any special consideration with regard to the taxes they pay.children are supposed to get educated from the money taxpayers pay - that has nothing to do with consideration of what the parents pay - it's in light of where the tax money that should be dedicated to THAT CHILD actually ends supporting that child directly or not. No vouchers, no "portability of funds", or other right wing claptrap.This is not a right/left thing even if you see everything that way - this is whether the intent for the common good is being met or not for the goal of educating each child. If the goal for the 'common good' is to educate children, then why doesn't the money go to the education of each child - rather it's dedicated to supporting the school system - something is wrong if the focus is supporting the government system rather than each child individually I have no children, and don't plan to have them. I don't get to opt out of paying taxes towards educating the children that are here in the USA. Nor would I want to. There is such a thing as common good, and social responsibility, that is being propagandized out of existence. It is the ultimate in selfishness that ignores the founding principles of the USA can't state it better than Lawrocket ...




however - since you seem to see things as left vs right rather than individualism for social construct, I doubt any debate here will be coherent

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dagnabbit, you keep putting good stuff out there that makes me actually think.

Personally, I do think that there is a concept such as "common good." It's messy, though, and it evolves with the times -- segregation used to be part of the "common good." What the people do in voting is help to decide what's part of it, and they maintain their right to disagree with the public definition -- protest is a well-protected activity in most of the US.

So, yes, in voting prop 8, the public of California established what they consider to be a common good. And now the 9th has said that "sorry, it's too late -- you can'ttake away rights once given, even based on that common good."

It's still a balance. My personal good might be best served by purely selfish activities, but then my environment will probably suffer more than my ability to make up for it with coccooning myself into my own little world.

The short term says "fuck-em." The long term (and my values) say "gotta pitch in, and I'm not always hte best judge of what someone else needs."

Wendy P.



1 - the nation is founded on the concept that the best thing for the common good is to allow individuals to fend for themselves (to be free to act in self interest) and the net effect is an overall win. Because we interact, then behavior drives support that improves the lot for all. But it requires each person to actively be responsible for themselves or left behind. (you can't be a criminal). (e.g., you need lumber to build something, that guy will harvest and deliver lumber for a living - you both win - and you both are driven by self interest - it's not a conflict - it's the formula for success)

It also requires each person to respect the others' to have the same rights (you can't be a busybody - the Prop 8 people crossed that line didn't they)




you don't to have to be "the best judge of what someone else needs". That is not your job - it's their job.

self interest does not equal - "cocooning yourself" - it requires interaction



I think the school voucher thing is interesting in how people look at the world -

1 - we need to provide a public system to educate this group (very socialistic) - funjumpers position - ignores each kid - focuses on the social system

2 - we need to provide a system to educate "children" (a little better) - more broad, allows some support

3 - we need to make sure "each individual child" has the opportunity for an education (individual responsibility based on respect the needs of society to have strong and capable individuals - allows option for people to choose or provide support as they see fit)



it takes a hell of a lot more education and observation and participation and pride to be part of an individualistic nation than to participate in a mass of programs, systems, and divisive groups

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Individual rights, I’m afraid, are BAD for the common good.

And individual rights are anathema to the common good. Period.



I disagree completely

Individual rights "result" in the common good. The "common good" is something that happens, it's not legislated, it can't be forced. It's a cause, not an effect.

Ignoring individual rights under the banner of the "common good" is bad for individuals, AND is bad for the common good. It think that your post actually speaks nicely to this.

You just have to sort out the short term thinkers from the long term thinkers. Your "common good" thinkers are one of two groups:

1 - selfish pricks looking to establish control and power over others

2 - people with good intentions, but with absolutely no clue to actual and long term consequences

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, I do think that there is a concept such as "common good." It's messy, though, and it evolves with the times -- segregation used to be part of the "common good."



Right. The “common good” always evolves because, in time, we frequently conclude that the “common good” was bad. We can cite plenty of examples where the “common good” was evil. The Native Americans that we didn’t kill could tell us all about it.

That’s my point – the common good is subjective. I have little doubt that funjumper would scream like hell if on the losing end of the “common good” argument. But funjumper argues that those opposed to funjumper’s idea of the common good are selfish.

It is not a yes/no thing. Capital punishment? Common good? No right or wrong answer.

Educational vouchers. Common good? Certainly not good for the teachers. Not good for government schooling. Maybe not even good for the kids. Good for individual choice? Is individual choice good?

These are all subjective. I get that. I understand that. We live in a world with few absolutes. And particularly with such terms as the “common good” there are subjective opinions (“good”) that are being argued as objective truths – which they are not. And I note that “common good” is always argued as the upside to the “uncommon bad.” Why should the terrorist be locked away without any due process? Well, for the common good, of course.

The common good does not make it any better for the victim. It is historically the province of despots and scoundrels to justify abuses with the argument of “common good.” Stalags were created for the common good. As was the EPA. As was the War on Terror. As was the National Park Service. As was the House Unamerican Activities Committee. As were the Bailouts. Etc.

The “common good” has a future that is no rosier than its heavily checkered past. That the common good is forced on people is an idea I do not support. Want to sacrifice yourself? Go for it – that’s altruism. Want to sacrifice others? No. I don’t support that at all. That’s misanthrope painted as altruism.

I view any argument about the “common good” with immense distrust. When I hear “common good” I presume it is bad because: (1) someone is saying it’s good; (2) someone has to convince people it’s good (meaning it must be bad, otherwise convincing won’t be necessary); and (3) some number of people less than 49.9 percent of the population are going to get hosed.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Individual rights "result" in the common good. The "common good" is something that happens, it's not legislated, it can't be forced. It's a cause, not an effect.




Oh, I personally agree completely. I am one who believes that society is most efficient, free, open and tolerant when it is a reflection of individual choices, preferences and sacrifices. Out of many, one.

There are many who believe that the individual should be a product of society. Not just any society, mind you. Not just any ethos – their ethos. For example, there are those who believe that Jack and his Pickemup truck with the Confederate Flag and a gun rack in the rear window should be phased out. In that sense, those people are placing judgments on what they deem best for society. As Al Gore said, “Out of one, many.”

But those are just your and my beliefs. We, however, have what I believe to be a more honest position. Our belief provides a place for them, but their belief provides little room for us. We believe that we should choose our sacrifices – we’ll decide whether to wear a hairshirt. Their belief is that societal good means somebody has to wear a hairshirt, and they’ll choose who that somebody is. (Not them – it’s gotta be someone else).


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawrocket's summary seems to be on the money here. Here's a piece from today's WSJ:

The Ball Heads for His Court
Same-sex marriage looks like a sure thing, at least in California.

By JAMES TARANTO

Same-sex marriage will resume in California over the will of the state's voters if a new federal court ruling stands up on appeal. In Perry v. Brown, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a trial judge's ruling that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that amended the state's constitution to restore the traditional definition of marriage. The Golden State's Supreme Court had earlier held that the unamended California Constitution mandated same-sex marriage, but then upheld the amendment that effectively struck down that ruling.

"In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing enduringly significant about today's ruling," writes National Review's Edward Whelan. A perceptive reader will recognize the ponderous qualifiers "grand" and "enduring" as signals that Whelan's assertion is a trivial truth. As he explains in his next sentence, "The Ninth Circuit was just a way-station on the path to the Supreme Court." It's possible that the Ninth Circuit will rehear the case en banc--i.e., before an 11-judge panel--though Whelan doubts it. In any case, an appeal to the high court is a certainty, and the justices' agreeing to hear the case is a strong possibility, if not an overwhelming likelihood.

The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn't. Reinhardt's decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.
[botwt0207] Associated Press

In August 2010, this column ventured a prediction: "When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger--perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry [it will be Perry v. Brown if today's opinion is appealed]--the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy's inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard's decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so--and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.

The trial judge in the Perry case held that same-sex marriage was itself protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the Ninth Circuit judges set aside this holding and decided the case on "narrow grounds." They found that Proposition 8 was analogous to Amendment 2, a Colorado ballot measure that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer v. Evans (1996).

Amendment 2 barred state and local government in the Centennial State from official actions "designed to protect the status of persons based on their 'homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.' " In a 6-3 ruling, the high court held that the amendment violated equal protection by "imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group." The author of that decision was Anthony Kennedy.

Today's Ninth Circuit decision relies almost entirely on Romer (quoting with citations omitted):

Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 "singles out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status. . . ." Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the "peculiar property" of "withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but not others," an existing legal right--here, access to the official designation of "marriage"--that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the [U.S.] Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place.

Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies "equal protection of laws in the most literal sense," because it "carves out" an "exception" to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 "by state decree . . . put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to" an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly "imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone." And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it "only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution" for a second time.

The only difference Reinhardt acknowledges between the two ballot measures is that whereas Amendment 2 imposed "a broad and undifferentiated disability" on homosexuals, Proposition 8 "excises with surgical precision one specific right."

Those who hope for a reversal of today's decision can perhaps take comfort that Justice Kennedy emphasized Amendment 2's breadth in his decision striking it down. But if Romer was correctly decided, as Kennedy obviously thinks it was, then Reinhardt's logic is compelling. It would take a lot more work to overturn today's ruling than to uphold it.

For Justice Kennedy, then, the path of least resistance is to follow what probably is his inclination to begin with--and he can do it without (yet) taking the momentous step of finding a new constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It seems perverse to suggest that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from amending its constitution to reverse a dubious ruling by the state's judiciary. But that would seem to be the inexorable consequence of Romer.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of things that this ruling is not. I, for one, see good reasons why the SCOTUS would deny cert on this (and I have a one dollar bet with a friend that the SCOTUS will deny cert on this) – mainly that the 9th Circuit majority limited the holding to a narrow issue. The dissent pointed out the analysis I was looking for, but that may not necessarily be up for consideration.

The majority did EXACTLY what it had to do to make this decision stick - narrowed it and cited prior law without making any new holdings. The SCOTUS may very well view this as an issue that will not settle the matter once and for all. I can see Roberts himself, with a petition for cert, saying, “This case won’t settle the issue and we’ll be revisiting it again and again. Let’s wait for a case that will have broad application and handle it in one fell swoop.”


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your post is generally good, but I also believe that it hashes over problems. I myself don’t like spending money on “preemptive” wars. Nor do I like the thought of my kids being sent to a school that sucks ass when the school down the street has a better performance record. The two are not related, and the whole idea that because (a) sucks then (b) is okay because it sucks, too is an argument that I abhor.

The Common Good
There is such thing as a common good. And the common good has a nasty habit of screwing people. Individual rights, I’m afraid, are BAD for the common good. The common good means putting millions of people in prison for drug offenses. The common good means keeping “terrorists” in cells in Cuba without due process. The common good means picking losers. The common good is rarely invoked by someone wishing to sacrifice himself or herself but is most frequently argued by those wishing to victimize another. Yes, the “common” may benefit but the “common” loses something, that something being the loss of an individual freedom.

Take a look at the 9th Circuit opinion that is directly related to this post – a KEY ARGUMENT by the Prop 8 Proponents is that gays are bad for society because they cannot procreate as a married heterosexual couple. Recall that for eons, homosexuals were imprisoned. They were put in mental hospitals. They were lobotomized. Gay was not viewed as good for an orderly society.

Here’s where I test your moral courage, funjumper: Do you agree that gays should not be allowed to marry? The common good has been stated, and the Prop 8 IS the policy statement from the people of the State of California. It was passed in an ELECTION - direct democracy. The will of the people. The common good.

So answer the question – we know that the common good is that gays should not be allowed to marry. It’s policy. Will you assist the common good in stomping out gay marriage once and for all?

I suspect that you will answer “no.” I which case I will be the first to condemn you as being what you claim to despise – SELFISH. It is my belief that you support “the common good” so long as “the common good” is what YOU PERSONALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE. In other words, some forms of common good (i.e., institutionalizing homosexuals) are not acceptable to you but other forms of common good, where the individual must yield to the will of society, are good.

I’m telling you this – I am NOT a person who puts orderly society and common good above the rights of the individual. In fact, your argument that the common good is an overreaching thought about the ideals of the country is wrong. You realize that the country was founded due to a revolution because this nation’s founders came to the conclusion that it SUCKED yielding to the whims of the government. Remember the whole “Tea Tax” issue? The individual rights of the Colonists being overtaken by the desire for an orderly society as decided by the government of England? Yeah.

America was founded on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. And individual rights are anathema to the common good. Period.

A society that values “common good” over “individual rights” is EXACTLY the society that would ban gay marriage. The key argument made by proponents of the Prop 8 was about the common good. It's why we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. It ensures that individual liberties do not yield to the common good. (When it's followed - the common good sure was a great thing for Japanese Americans in WWII, wasn't it?)

I believe that you are being intellectually dishonest. Your positions cannot be reconciled. So I ask you to pick one: is it okay to ban gay marriage if it is for the common good? Or do you believe that nobody should have the right to define the common good?

I pick the latter.



My name is BikerBabe, and this is my favorite post on the internet! (video game reference, sorry for those of you unenlightened by the largest sector of the entertainment industry)

Just quoting to re-iterate.

This is also why i usually end up voting for "liberal" candidates.

And scooby, I'm pretty sure "deny cert" means (in laymans terms) that the SCOTUS won't hear the case, but i'm no expert.
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the common good be defined by the will of the majority? I'll grant that it's quite common for people to vote for whatever they think is best for them, but popularity says nothing about morality. So while a majority may believe any particular thing, and vote in favor of it, that merely makes it the common position, without regard to good or evil.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why would the common good be defined by the will of the majority? I'll grant that it's quite common for people to vote for whatever they think is best for them, but popularity says nothing about morality. So while a majority may believe any particular thing, and vote in favor of it, that merely makes it the common position, without regard to good or evil.



EXACTLY! Who the hell defines the “common good?” It’s a term that was put out there as a justification for a position. I took funjumper’s post and ran with it and criticized the positions therein as being irreconcilable unless they are wholly subjective. Subjective preference stated as objective truth is selfish. I’d even call it pseudo-messianic (what I say is the truth, I say this is best for all, those that disagree are uneducated drones, etc.)

Funjumper cited “common good” and then called upon people to vote to influence these things. I found the ideas highly relevant, because “will of the people” and common god are EXACTLY what the people who support the ban on gay marriage are citing.

And I say, “Who the hell are you do define the common good?” The Prop 8 proponents really believe that it is in the best interests of society if gays are not allowed to marry. They’ll tell you it is. Their opinion of the common good is no better than funjumper’s opinion, your opinion, or mine. But funjumper says the “common good” is okay. I ask funjumper if “common good” is okay by itself, or whether it is only a good thing if funjumper agrees with the statement.

My point is that in a free society, nobody defines the common good. It’s a nice sounding statement that is a justification for tyranny.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why would the common good be defined by the will of the majority? I'll grant that it's quite common for people to vote for whatever they think is best for them, but popularity says nothing about morality. So while a majority may believe any particular thing, and vote in favor of it, that merely makes it the common position, without regard to good or evil.

Blues,



I think you are missing the point - People ACTING in their best interests (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others) result in the optimized best interest of the populace in general.

That has nothing to do your inference here that individualism is about People VOTING their best interests and, via legislation, FORCING everyone else to go along with it.......that's the whole 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on food issues....that's still not individualism, it's more of what we got now

you're confusing the common good, with government forcing a common consensus

short answer - you just can't legislate a common good on subjective issues (like social issues), and direct issues kinda work out without interference

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


would deny cert



What does that mean?



There are very few types of cases that are appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) as a mater of right. In order to get a case heard by the SCOTUS, you have to ask the court whether it will hear it by requesting a Writ of Certiorari (“cert”). In order to grant the writ, four justices must agree to hear the case. Then briefing begins.

The effect is that the cases the SCOTUS hears are limited to typically important issues OR to a matter where the courts disagree (i.e., the Ninth Circuit views a law one way but the Fifth Circuit views is another way).

The SCOTUS hears about 1 percent of cases it is asked to hear each year. So already the deck is stacked against a litigant hoping for a reversal. I think the SCOTUS will deny cert in this case because the Ninth Circuit’s holding is so limited AND, fundamentally, was so cleverly written that it would require activism on the part of the anti-activist judges who would want to reverse it.

Hand it to Justice Reinhardt – the guy was a steely eyed judicial man with this case.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is also why i usually end up voting for "liberal" candidates.



I'm not sure what that means - 'liberal' policies just mean new and out of the box (if you avoid the partisan sterotype of the term). They can either move us to more individualistic stances (not restricting marriage, school choice, partial privatization of health care, freedom of travel, speech, etc) or they can move us away and more towards a collectivist stance (restricting rights, telling us what kind of light bulb we have to buy, restricting business opportunities, religious persecution, hiring and firing restrictions, redistribution, usurping property rights)


So saying, that guy's a "liberal" doesn't help - what kind of liberal is important

the funny thing about parties - both the DNC and the RNC are organized groups intending to push an agenda that does NOT equal (in general) protection of individual freedoms, just the opposite, they want to exercise power, not release it - so they both are primarily collectivists by design. that's the irony


Unless you're just buying into the partisan stereotypes, but I think you're smarter than that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests."


That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.




You will simply be on the wrong side of history. Over the past several years, support among the under 35 segment of the country has their support for Gay marriage running close to 70%.

One day in the future, when you are much older, your opinion on Gay marriage will be considered nothing more than a pacuilarr oddity of a different time by your young and baffled grand kids.


It's not a mater of if, it's just a matter of when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests."


That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.




You will simply be on the wrong side of history. Over the past several years, support among the under 35 segment of the country has their support for Gay marriage running close to 70%.

One day in the future, when you are much older, your opinion on Gay marriage will be considered nothing more than a pacuilarr oddity of a different time by your young and baffled grand kids.


It's not a mater of if, it's just a matter of when.



No one knows my opinion of same sex marriage. You presume. My posts relate how the court case, from past events and cases will go.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thx for that post.
There appear to be several different layers of attitude at play in this thread. Those who have a vested interest. Those who have a professional interest. And those who have an intellectual interest. Neither a dig or a flame. Simply a question. To answer, or not to, is kool w/ me.
Your view?

B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests."


That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.




You will simply be on the wrong side of history. Over the past several years, support among the under 35 segment of the country has their support for Gay marriage running close to 70%.

One day in the future, when you are much older, your opinion on Gay marriage will be considered nothing more than a pacuilarr oddity of a different time by your young and baffled grand kids.


It's not a mater of if, it's just a matter of when.



I take it then that you are happy that the court overturned the voters of CA?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I take it then that you are happy that the court overturned the voters of CA?

I am. I am glad that individual liberty won over government restrictions on our rights.



Then you will be happy when Obama care is eliminated too

Good to know
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0