There is much fear among my NRA friends about this election and the loss of rights of gunownership. Many are buying up magazines and the like know . I have
more guns than I need now but would like for my yet to be born Son to be able to shoot and enjoy it like I have.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 wcvet |
|||
|
TIGER OVERLORD
 Posts: 6333 (05/16/08 06:53:30) |
|
||
|
BizEagle |
|||
|
TIGER OVERLORD
Posts: 5387 (05/16/08 06:55:46) |
You nailed it PT. A lot of this is about getting other people to pay for your benefits, so you don't have to work to get them. It will drive costs up even
faster. Businesses are feeling the pinch already and having to cancel or reduce benefits so they can stay in business. The cost to governments will be
astronomical.
With regards to the constitutionality, few legal scholars will agree that this decision has anything to do with constitutionality. This is all about left leaning judges hiding their personal bias and until they are appointed to the judgeships they always wanted. They do favors for politicians, make friends, go to the right meetings, churches, etc. to hide who they really are. Then when they get the appointments, they do as much dirty work as they can for as long as they can. Every competent legal scholar I have read so far on this issue basically states that this decsion was plucked out of someone's imagination and goes down on record has one of poorest and most groundless legal decision in state history. Fortunately, the constitutional amendment has good momentum and will take control out of the judicial despots' hands. Hey Patch, I am a little surprised you support totalitarian dictators like these judges. Oh yeah, you are a Castro and Kim Jung Il fan, right? |
||
|
PalmettoTiger |
|||
|
TIGER OVERLORD
Posts: 5324 (05/16/08 07:03:50) SUPREME TIGER |
I would have added this as an edit but I wanted to keep it separate so it'd be equal ([rimshot]) in terms of attention.
First, let me excerpt from Levine on another legal issue surrounding the decision: The majority decision goes well beyond the narrow question of gay marriage. It also holds for the first time that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" under the California's Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, any law in the state that discriminates against homosexuals will be subject to "strict scrutiny" by the court - essentially treating it the same way as laws that discriminate against racial minorities. [This part of the ruling can be found in Section V-B of the decision PDF, starting on pg. 95.] […] What become smore interesting in this - the further you read into the document document - is that the entire court found that there was no discrimination on the basis of sex in the marriage statute. Where it split 4-3, was the majority found the marriage statute was discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. The problem with that interpetation, though, is that the statute does not say a word about sexual orientation being a qualifying or disqualifying factor in whether or not the happy couple can get a marriage license. In English, folks couldn't marry someone of the same sex even if both partners were straight. Why in hell you'd want to do that is beyond me but there it is. Orientation of teh couple was irrelevent under the law. At this point, I'd like to revise part of my previous comments as I do now view this with a bit more gimlet eye (vodka gimlet, make it a double) on the issue of whether or not it is activism by four of the judges. Seems to be a good argument that it is. Whole thing is still BS, though. PT
Last Edited By: PalmettoTiger
05/16/08 07:05:51.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
IDZYNE |
I can't believe I agree with Patchie! | ||
|
TIGER OVERLORD
Posts: 4263 (05/16/08 07:06:00) |
soulpatch wrote:
|
||
|
BizEagle |
|||
|
TIGER OVERLORD
Posts: 5387 (05/16/08 08:49:38) |
PT,
You just made the legal point I have been stating on this issue for years and that is that sexual orientation is not a constitutionally protected group. Sexual orientation does not equal gender. Therefore, this decision clearly has no foundation in constitutional law and it stands precisely opposed to constitutional law. Regardless of what your sexual orientation is, there is no law that precludes anyone from marying the opposite gender. Therefore there is no constitutionally recognized discrimination in a marriage law that defines a marriage between a biological man and a biological woman. If you could get liberals to honest on this point, there would be no debate except to amend the constitution of the United States, adding sexual orientation as a protected category. But, because people are so dumbed down and others are so dishonest, this type of illogical and irrational thought is allowed to stand. |
||
Quick Reply
THANK YOU FOR VISITING AND SUPPORTING THE AUBURN FOOTBALL AND TIGER INSIDER AUBURN MESSAGE BOARDS!
OTHER SITES: AUBURN BASEBALL UAB BLAZERS FOOTBALL GREAT PHARMACY JOBS PHARMACIST JOBS RECRUITERS LSU TIGERS FOOTBALL PHARMACYFAX SEARCHPAC
