Gay discrimination

Maverick · Mar 15, 2014

Ragman said:
I respect their protecting minority rights.

Then you would not mind at all....if they begin protecting mine?

aristotle · Mar 15, 2014

Our experiment with federalism is failing. Powers delegated to the states are no longer respected at the federal level. By ratifying the Constitution, the states created the federal government, not the other way around. The US federal government treats states with the same consideration a pimp gives to women.

layoutshooter · Mar 16, 2014

Ragman said:
I respect their protecting minority rights.

Hard working, law abiding citizens who respect and live by the Constitution ARE the minority in this country. Our government, often aided by jurists, is dismantling the Constitution. EVERYONE is a minority. My rights are being taken from me wholesale. Why is it you support that? The courts, as with the legislative and executive branches are out of control, they have been for a LONG time. We have a Constitution and your beloved jurists are doing their best to destroy it.

Maverick · Mar 16, 2014

layoutshooter said:
Hard working, law abiding citizens who respect and live by the Constitution ARE the minority in this country. Our government, often aided by jurists, is dismantling the Constitution. EVERYONE is a minority. My rights are being taken from me wholesale. Why is it you support that? The courts, as with the legislative and executive branches are out of control, they have been for a LONG time. We have a Constitution and your beloved jurists are doing their best to destroy it.

Seems correct to me. Wanna get removed, real quick, from jury duty selection process?

"Long as the court knows, I'll be viewing this case through the lens and laws of the US Constitution".

Does no good to have laws governing a country, only to have ignorant people deciding, through bleeding heart emotion; how those laws should be applied, and to whom. We seemed to have gone from critical thinking individualist's (required for freedom, and Republics), to a mambypamby bunch of people who think with their hearts, instead of their head.

When deciding on how law should apply, and given intent....please do us all a favor in leaving the handkerchiefs at home? Posterity will love you for it.

Turtle · Mar 16, 2014

Maverick said:
Does no good to have laws governing a country, only to have ignorant people deciding, through bleeding heart emotion; how those laws should be applied, and to whom.

On that note, if you want to really trash out the jury selection process, during selection ask, "Will jury nullification be available to us in this trial?" Not only will you be quickly removed from the jury, but so will every other potential juror who heard you ask the question. Jury nullification is something that prosecutors and judges go to great lengths to not inform a jury of, despite it being a constitutional doctrine that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished.

Maverick · Mar 16, 2014

Turtle said:
On that note, if you want to really trash out the jury selection process, during selection ask, "Will jury nullification be available to us in this trial?" Not only will you be quickly removed from the jury, but so will every other potential juror who heard you ask the question. Jury nullification is something that prosecutors and judges go to great lengths to not inform a jury of, despite it being a constitutional doctrine that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished.

Well said. Most people don't even realize they can throw the whole law....out the window. Sorry judge, sorry prosecutor, we have decided the law is not just in this case. Not guilty.

Pilgrim · Mar 16, 2014

Ragman said:
I respect their protecting minority rights.

Maverick said:

Then you would not mind at all....if they begin protecting mine?

Click to expand...

Guess it depends on whether or not you're a minority. Since when does behavior determine one's minority status?

The only time the U.S. Supreme Court came dangerously close to doing its job, was when Justice Antonin Scalia grilled attorney Ted Olson. Scalia demanded clarification of when homosexual marriage suddenly became a constitutional right. This was not only delightful theater. Scalia was actually making an important legal point. There is no constitutional basis. Since it is clear that homosexuality was not a protected right in the past, and nothing has changed with the Constitution, so there is no constitutional right now...

Under its own well-established precedents, what the Court was supposed to be doing under an "Equal Protection Clause" challenge was:
(A) First ask whether the law burdens members of a "suspect class" (protected minority). If those affected are not a protected minority, the case ends right there. There is an exact legal definition. Homosexuals have never been recognized as a "suspect class," including because (1) homosexuals have normal political clout to defend their interests in the political process and (2) sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color or ethnicity. Private sexuality is -- as the courts have always viewed it -- a personal choice. The U.S. Supreme Court should have been focusing on whether it will overturn its own prior precedents to create a new "suspect class" -- and why...

Articles: Legislating from the Bench on Gay Marriage

Click to expand...

asjssl · Mar 17, 2014

Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church Founder, Is 'On The Edge Of Death'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4974584

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

davekc · Mar 17, 2014

asjssl said:
Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church Founder, Is 'On The Edge Of Death'

Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church Founder, Is 'On The Edge Of Death'

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Should we presume you plan to picket at his funeral?

asjssl · Mar 17, 2014

davekc said:
Should we presume you plan to picket at his funeral?

Nope...would not waste my time...but wonder if people will??

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

davekc · Mar 17, 2014

They might. He caused a lot of people unnecessary grief.

asjssl · Mar 17, 2014

He sure did...lots of hate in that man...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Pilgrim · Mar 17, 2014

One can imagine the undignified laughter when he arrives at the Pearly Gates.

OntarioVanMan · Mar 17, 2014

All People are created equal....or so some say......I don't know why ones sexual preference is even the governments business?.....it has nothing to do with anything...except how 2 people chose live their own lives.... Why again 4 more pages of straight people discussing the future of gay people...?

OntarioVanMan · Mar 17, 2014

Why did governments feel the need to define what a marriage is in the first place? because of heavy religeous lobbying?..... Two FREE Americans citizens all.... Free to chose their own life path....should never have to go begging to a government for rights that are afforded everyone else.....why are they isolated from society? How did this travesty happen?...

layoutshooter · Mar 17, 2014

OntarioVanMan said:
Why did governments feel the need to define what a marriage is in the first place? because of heavy religeous lobbying?..... Two FREE Americans citizens all.... Free to chose their own life path....should never have to go begging to a government for rights that are afforded everyone else.....why are they isolated from society? How did this travesty happen?...

Several thousand years of tradition based on a real need, survival of the species.

They REFUSED a legal, workable solution of their own accord. Civil unions solved ALL problems WITHOUT confrontation and strife. It would seem that confrontation and strife is the primary goal. Too many of "their" leaders are too much like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

It once was fixable, in a way that would have smoothed things out and allowed time to work. That can no longer happen. They made it worse.

OntarioVanMan · Mar 17, 2014

layoutshooter said:
Several thousand years of tradition based on a real need, survival of the species.

They REFUSED a legal, workable solution of their own accord. Civil unions solved ALL problems WITHOUT confrontation and strife. It would seem that confrontation and strife is the primary goal. Too many of "their" leaders are too much like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

It once was fixable, in a way that would have smoothed things out and allowed time to work. That can no longer happen. They made it worse.

Really?....they get to be married and that is it?....No survivors benefits, no nothing....because the government declared a marriage was between a man and a woman so FREEDOMS are denied on this basis?....an American has the unequivicle right to be treated equal and just under the law.....or is that just the straight Americans?....

layoutshooter · Mar 17, 2014

OntarioVanMan said:
Really?....they get to be married and that is it?....No survivors benefits, no nothing....because the government declared a marriage was between a man and a woman so FREEDOMS are denied on this basis?....an American has the unequivicle right to be treated equal and just under the law.....or is that just the straight Americans?....

Civil unions would have the same "rights" as a marriage. So would a very simple, inexpensive legal contract drawn up by a lawyer. It once had been a simple solution. Instead, it is just being used as ANOTHER wedge to divide the Nation. Which is the REAL reason for all the hoopla.

Who said no survivors benefits? Who said no nothing? A WILL does MOST of what you are speaking of.

This is not an issue of equality.

asjssl · Mar 17, 2014

layoutshooter said:
Civil unions would have the same "rights" as a marriage. So would a very simple, inexpensive legal contract drawn up by a lawyer. It once had been a simple solution. Instead, it is just being used as ANOTHER wedge to divide the Nation. Which is the REAL reason for all the hoopla.

Who said no survivors benefits? Who said no nothing? A WILL does MOST of what you are speaking of.

This is not an issue of equality.

Yes it is equality ..there tax paying american citizens the get equal rights as you and I ...you are always jumping up and down about your rights and $$ being taken away...they just want what every American can do..equal rights to me...what makes us better than them to to deny them something on who THEY ARE AND LOVE

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app