Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Federal judge just brought down the hammer. Congrats to a certain poster here.

Thanks!

Two threads?? MODS!!!!

Grizalltheway wrote:Two threads?? MODS!!!!

Montana is coming soon

Then you and Grizo can tie the knot

dbackjon wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Two threads?? MODS!!!!

Montana is coming soon

Then you and Grizo can tie the knot

His balloon knot is already tied up by Ursus and Alphie.

DOMA is coming back to bite conservatives in the ASS!!!

CONGRATS TO JON AND ALEX!!!!!!!!! You guys deserve to fully celebrate your love within the bonds of marriage. I voted for this in South Carolina in 2008, as you well know Jon, and it's only a matter of time. Hope so. I am friends with a lesbian couple and I cannot wait to attend their wedding because I know it would be a blast.

All the best!

hitchinaride wrote:DOMA is coming back to bite conservatives in the ASS!!!

CONGRATS TO JON AND ALEX!!!!!!!!! You guys deserve to fully celebrate your love within the bonds of marriage. I voted for this in South Carolina in 2008, as you well know Jon, and it's only a matter of time. Hope so. I am friends with a lesbian couple and I cannot wait to attend their wedding because I know it would be a blast.

All the best!

Thank you!!!

It's not really unconstitutional. Yes, we have to act as though it is because that's the system we've allowed to develop. That system is that the Constitution says whatever the Judges say it says. But there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits such a ban. It's one more instance of the Federal Judiciary making things up and imposing its will.

It would be more correct to say that Arizona's ban on same sex marriage has been thrown out through Judicial fiat because that's what happened in that case as well as has been the case with many other States. Also many other issues. Basically government by Judicial oligarchy as Thomas Jefferson warned would be the case.

But it's not the Constitution doing this. It's the completely out of control Judiciary we have doing ti.

Eh. Jefferson also thought we should rewrite the Constitution every couple of decades and shouldn't be beholden to previous generations.

Do you think anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional or unconstitutional?

JohnStOnge wrote:It's not really unconstitutional. Yes, we have to act as though it is because that's the system we've allowed to develop. That system is that the Constitution says whatever the Judges say it says. But there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits such a ban. It's one more instance of the Federal Judiciary making things up and imposing its will.

It would be more correct to say that Arizona's ban on same sex marriage has been thrown out through Judicial fiat because that's what happened in that case as well as has been the case with many other States. Also many other issues. Basically government by Judicial oligarchy as Thomas Jefferson warned would be the case.

But it's not the Constitution doing this. It's the completely out of control Judiciary we have doing ti.

Johnny I think we all agree
The Federal and Local governments need to get out of the Marriage business
But
But
But - there's always a But

As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter... The day the Federal Government got into the Marriage Business by granting "Advantage" to set of peoples was the day this situation loomed in the future present


Surely you can see that right..?

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:It's not really unconstitutional. Yes, we have to act as though it is because that's the system we've allowed to develop. That system is that the Constitution says whatever the Judges say it says. But there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits such a ban. It's one more instance of the Federal Judiciary making things up and imposing its will.

It would be more correct to say that Arizona's ban on same sex marriage has been thrown out through Judicial fiat because that's what happened in that case as well as has been the case with many other States. Also many other issues. Basically government by Judicial oligarchy as Thomas Jefferson warned would be the case.

But it's not the Constitution doing this. It's the completely out of control Judiciary we have doing ti.

Johnny I think we all agree
The Federal and Local governments need to get out of the Marriage business
But
But
But - there's always a But

As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter... The day the Federal Government got into the Marriage Business by granting "Advantage" to set of peoples was the day this situation loomed in the future present


Surely you can see that right..?

Having multiple souses, because you can't choose just one when love and marriage is involved, is next.

John and Cry Baby, of course, will be on the front line defending polygamist's rights to love and marry more than one person. Just think of how many Mormons feel inadequate simply because a law declares that their love is not normal.

Right, Jon? Or do you believe that Mormons should die from some disease?



Counseling clean up...aisle 5.

Honestly I don't see the problem with polygamy. Other than religion, why should it be illegal? Seriously.

Vidav wrote:Honestly I don't see the problem with polygamy. Other than religion, why should it be illegal? Seriously.

As long as it is consenting adults... (Adults) is the key word
Free consenting adults

Cluck U wrote:
Having multiple souses, because you can't choose just one when love and marriage is involved, is next.

I haven't been "soused" in a long time. I'm due for multiple souses.

Chizzang wrote:

Vidav wrote:Honestly I don't see the problem with polygamy. Other than religion, why should it be illegal? Seriously.

As long as it is consenting adults... (Adults) is the key word
Free consenting adults

Yep. In fact, JSO should be all for this as monogamy is unnatural.

Chizzang wrote:
As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter...

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my- ... l-cost-you" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suckers.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter...

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my- ... l-cost-you" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suckers.

Well there is that too... I hear in NYC marrying into money is an art form

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:It's not really unconstitutional. Yes, we have to act as though it is because that's the system we've allowed to develop. That system is that the Constitution says whatever the Judges say it says. But there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits such a ban. It's one more instance of the Federal Judiciary making things up and imposing its will.

It would be more correct to say that Arizona's ban on same sex marriage has been thrown out through Judicial fiat because that's what happened in that case as well as has been the case with many other States. Also many other issues. Basically government by Judicial oligarchy as Thomas Jefferson warned would be the case.

But it's not the Constitution doing this. It's the completely out of control Judiciary we have doing ti.

Johnny I think we all agree
The Federal and Local governments need to get out of the Marriage business
But
But
But - there's always a But

As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter... The day the Federal Government got into the Marriage Business by granting "Advantage" to set of peoples was the day this situation loomed in the future present


Surely you can see that right..?

well hell Ive only said precisely this about 20 times on this board

i dont know why i bother

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Johnny I think we all agree
The Federal and Local governments need to get out of the Marriage business
But
But
But - there's always a But

As long as its a Tax Advantage to get married then it absolutely is unconstitutional to grant the advantage to one set of consenting adults and not another (Black white Male Female) it does't matter... The day the Federal Government got into the Marriage Business by granting "Advantage" to set of peoples was the day this situation loomed in the future present


Surely you can see that right..?

well hell Ive only said precisely this about 20 times on this board

i dont know why i bother

You trudge onward because
"resident Scientist" and most logical smartest poster on the board = JohnStwrong

Needs to be explained things about 200 times before he grasps the subtleties that reside outside of the Fundamentalist Christian Nuances - which he seems to have a very strong understanding of
All other logical subtleties are lost on him - such as this topic

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
well hell Ive only said precisely this about 20 times on this board

i dont know why i bother

You trudge onward because
"resident Scientist" and most logical smartest poster on the board = JohnStwrong

Needs to be explained things about 200 times before he grasps the subtleties that reside outside of the Fundamentalist Christian Nuances - which he seems to have a very strong understanding of
All other logical subtleties are lost on him - such as this topic

As a person who fully supports gay marriage I don't think the creation of a tax advantage changes the intent of the constitution. but what the hell. I guess I should be like everyone else and simply be glad that my view point is winning no matter how the constitution gets distorted.

And SK, when Jefferson said we should redo the constitution every 20 years, I don't think he wanted it by judicial fiat. As a matter of fact, I am sure that idea would appeal to him as much as decrees issued by royalty.

OL FU wrote: And SK, when Jefferson said we should redo the constitution every 20 years, I don't think he wanted it by judicial fiat. As a matter of fact, I am sure that idea would appeal to him as much as decrees issued by royalty.

Didn't mean he would support the judicial branch rewriting the constitution every 20 years.

Meant it within his belief that the current generation shouldn't be beholden to the previous generation - much less a generation 200+ years ago.

Of course, no way in hell we would be able to rewrite something as fundamental as the Constitution without bloodshed these days. But, again... not what I'm talking about either.

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

You trudge onward because
"resident Scientist" and most logical smartest poster on the board = JohnStwrong

Needs to be explained things about 200 times before he grasps the subtleties that reside outside of the Fundamentalist Christian Nuances - which he seems to have a very strong understanding of
All other logical subtleties are lost on him - such as this topic

As a person who fully supports gay marriage I don't think the creation of a tax advantage changes the intent of the constitution. but what the hell. I guess I should be like everyone else and simply be glad that my view point is winning no matter how the constitution gets distorted.

And SK, when Jefferson said we should redo the constitution every 20 years, I don't think he wanted it by judicial fiat. As a matter of fact, I am sure that idea would appeal to him as much as decrees issued by royalty.

AZ and I think white males between the ages of 45 and 55 should get a TAX break of 10% off the top of our Annual Returns because we are the Producers... Unless you're Gay or Black or Female or of a different age group this TAX Break applies to Everyone

BTW:
Its not mentioned in the constitution specifically - so its totally constitutional....

deleted for reading fail. pwi.

Chizzang wrote:

OL FU wrote:

As a person who fully supports gay marriage I don't think the creation of a tax advantage changes the intent of the constitution. but what the hell. I guess I should be like everyone else and simply be glad that my view point is winning no matter how the constitution gets distorted.

And SK, when Jefferson said we should redo the constitution every 20 years, I don't think he wanted it by judicial fiat. As a matter of fact, I am sure that idea would appeal to him as much as decrees issued by royalty.

AZ and I think white males between the ages of 45 and 55 should get a TAX break of 10% off the top of our Annual Returns because we are the Producers... Unless you're Gay or Black or Female or of a different age group this TAX Break applies to Everyone

BTW:
Its not mentioned in the constitution specifically - so its totally constitutional....

I'm glad your bored and appreciate the smartass answer. One of the reasons I don't participate a whole lot. I do like discussing politics, but just not that good at the political smack.

So give me something that makes sense and I might respond

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

AZ and I think white males between the ages of 45 and 55 should get a TAX break of 10% off the top of our Annual Returns because we are the Producers... Unless you're Gay or Black or Female or of a different age group this TAX Break applies to Everyone

BTW:
Its not mentioned in the constitution specifically - so its totally constitutional....

I'm glad your bored and appreciate the smartass answer. One of the reasons I don't participate a whole lot. I do like discussing politics, but just not that good at the political smack.

So give me something that makes sense and I might respond

Oh come on... Its not that bad