Oh Robbie...........

Go ahead.......Make My Day!

what?

Is this a shot at me supporting Rudy at first? yeah I did... he turned out to be a shitty candidate... oh well... live and learn.

oh well... live and learn.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


As long as you continue to do so Rob.

You make us so proud at times........

As long as you continue to do so Rob.

Weren't you saying he'd be out before Iowa tho?

I simply can't see McCain's success continuing. If I'm wrong, so be it--but he simply has no organizations in most of the states.
Time will tell.

It was always Mac's race to lose, and he was doing a damn fine job of it too until recently.

But he is still a rather loose cannon, one that could go off any minute.

I don't see any difference between rudy, mccain, romney, gulianni, or any liberal democrat.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. It doesn't stop evil it only lengthens the suffering. Bush has been a huge disappointment to me and I repent for having voted at all.

My choices have been reduced to voting against Islam or voting for socialist communist liberalism. No thanks to either, I reject them both.


Someone said something to the affect that a society of sheep eventually begets a govt. wolves.


I'll be voting for Ron Paul and voting any and all incumbents out regardless.

If I'm wrong, so be it--but he simply has no organizations in most of the states.
Time will tell.

Posted by rightisright


You're right about that... which is why if he wants to win it all he needs to get a couple more wins under his belt to really build momentum and get the free advertising in the press...

I'll be voting for Ron Paul

The guy who hates Jews, Blacks and Gays... Hmmm... intersting.

The guy who hates Jews, Blacks and Gays... Hmmm... intersting.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-01-14 10:36 AM |


Utter bullshit.

Utter bullshit.

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon


Sorry did I leave out Hispanics?

It seems to me that the GOP electorate wants more illegal immigration and to stay 100+ years in Iraq.

Weren't you saying he'd be out before Iowa tho?

Wasn't he?

Sorry did I leave out Hispanics?

Yeah, also Micks, Chinks, Wops and Retards.

The guy who hates Jews, Blacks and Gays... Hmmm... intersting.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


In other words, you'd prefer it if RP hated Muslims, like you right?

My son-in-law is a brilliant, wealthy, caring, moderate Republican... his kind could restore confidence in the Republican party.... in the 30+ years that I have known him he's never lowered himself to name calling.

(On my better days I can forgo the name calling...)

And Rob I appreciate your comments.

Yo

"However, "nearly three quarters of Republican primary voters said it was still too early for them to make up their minds.."

For me, it's been very simple...I'm voting for any candidate running against Hillary. She WILL BE the democrat nominee, you know.

In other words, you'd prefer it if RP hated Muslims, like you right?

Posted by member2586


Well at least then he'd have reason to. He could explain his hatred... but Blacks, Jews and Gays? Kind of tough to justify hating them nowadays...

"Kind of tough to justify hating them nowadays.."

Are saying it was OK to hate them back in the past ?

But he is still a rather loose cannon, one that could go off any minute.

In the time before blogs, I remember listening to Limbaugh during the 2000 primary, and hearing Rush tear into McCain as he carried Bush's water.
McCain was derided as a crazy idiot, a loon who couldn't be trusted with janitor duties.

The GOP elites didn't want McCain then, and they don't want him now. The only thing saving McCain right now is that they can't decide between God and money.

If Romney was a baptist minister, McCain would be toast already.

Norm_, whatever happened to McCain's bad temper? Apparenlty, bad temper is not an issue these days, but I am sure McCain has his temper.

Are saying it was OK to hate them back in the past ?

Posted by member2586


No, but back a few decades it was more acceptable in society to be racist and biggoted. Schools being segregated and such... and other laws on the books making certain types of people second class citizens.

Rob, did you see this?

www.drudge.com

Posted by member2586


I hadn't seen that... Nothing good ever comes from political correctness or multicutural sensitivity...

Weren't you saying he'd be out before Iowa tho?

Wasn't he?

Posted by northguy3


Took the words.......

"No, but back a few decades it was more acceptable in society to be racist and biggoted. Schools being segregated and such... and other laws on the books making certain types of people second class citizens."

So you think nowadays Jews, Blacks and Gays are not second class citizens, but would understand if someone said they hated Muslims. Are you saying you want Muslims to be second classe citizens, to be segregated and denied jobs?

"and other laws on the books making certain types of people second class citizens."

Whereas now, the Republicans just want laws on the books to make second-class citizens out of gays.

That is true Danforth, very true.

Are you saying you want Muslims to be second classe citizens, to be segregated and denied jobs?

Posted by member2586


How were the Japanese treated in this country during the 1940s?

So you think nowadays Jews, Blacks and Gays are not second class citizens

They have the same rights as I do... and for the most part are treated equally... I know, I know... gay marriage... where is Marriage a "Right," granted by the Constitution?

That is true Danforth, very true.

Posted by member2586


No it isn't

"How were the Japanese treated in this country during the 1940s?"

I'll give you points for honesty.

Were the Italian and German Americans treated the same?

"where is Marriage a "Right," granted by the Constitution?"

The Constitution does not grant rights, people are born with rights, if you believe in god, then they are god-given rights. The constitution protects the rights people have. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Were the Italian and German Americans treated the same?

No they weren't... although, the Germans and Italians hadn't launched a suprise attack against the United States killing thousands in a single morning launching the nation into war from a relatively peaceful state...

Hmmmm... that does sound familiar...

The Constitution does not grant rights, people are born with rights, if you believe in god, then they are god-given rights. The constitution protects the rights people have. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Posted by member2586

Okay fine, but still, where is marriage a right?

"No it isn't"

Rob seems to conveniently forget the recent Constitutional Amendment proffered by the Republicans which would have codified gays as second-class citizens.

germany and italy and japan are countries we were at war with

we're not at "war" with islam

or are we rob?

almost half of the muslims in america are black
have fun trying to pull that japanese shit on them.

i dare ya.

"Loving v. Virginia is the case that made marriage a constitutional right. "Earl Warren says in his opinion, 'Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.'"

Not exactly, Loving recognized that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, not that Marriage is a Constitutional right.

Loving may someday be the basis under which SCOTUS recognizes same sex marriage, but I don't think that they will give cert to such a case for a few more years (and no, it has nothing to do with the conservative balance of power currently on the court and everything to do with public perception of the institution).

Here in SF, two of my best friends got "married" by Mayor Newsom only to have their marriages struck down by the courts, and they considered appealing (one is a well known appellate lawyer here in the City) but decided that the time wasn't right and that since the rest of the US wasn't ready to accept gay marriage that it would be a waste of time.

Marriage is a right. Being recognized by the State is a State right.

Are you saying you want Muslims to be second classe citizens, to be segregated and denied jobs?

I've stood on the streets of Chicago in 105 degree heat, and seen a muslim man in t-shirt and shorts, while his wife and daughter walk behind him in heavy black burkas.

Muslims treat their women like third class citizens, so it averages out to a second class society. They segregate their women and deny them oportunity and freedom.

They can come out of the middle ages whenever they want, but until that day, the facts stand. They make themselves second class.

"Loving recognized that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, not that Marriage is a Constitutional right."

I disagree with your assessment of that case. Sure, the outcome of the case was the mscegenation statutes were struck down, but the court's very basis for doing so was repeatedly stated as a Constitutional right to marriage. Here are a few quotes from the case.

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."


To me, these statements amount to more than mere dicta. The court is clearly saying that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The same applies to all races. The blacks who have rejected the thug life have created a very successful middle class.

The ones who think that's "acting white" remain in the ghetto or jail. They segregate themselves and deny themselves jobs.

the freedom to marry

Yes, that is the correct way to state it. Strictly speaking, we do not have a fundamental right to marriage, because marriage requires two free people to agree.

If an asshole of a man can't find anyone willing to marry him, does he still have a right to marriage?
Who would you force to marry him?

Everyone has the freedom to marry, but not an absolute right to it.

Muslims treat their women like third class citizens

i've seen white men beat their wives

so what?

my wife doesn't wear a headscarf and definately doesn't walk behind me.

what are you saying
the actions of the one equate the actions of all?

Rob seems to conveniently forget the recent Constitutional Amendment proffered by the Republicans which would have codified gays as second-class citizens.

Posted by Danforth


no, it just would have said they wouldn't be legally recognized as married, because marriage would be between a man and a woman.

Gay men and women would still have all the same rights and privilidges you and I have.

If I park in a handicapped spot I get a ticket... if I do it repeatedly I'm going to jail. Handicapped people can park there all they want. Does that make me a second class citizen? No, it just means there is a law for a group of people that I am not a part of.

Standing before you are two women. They are sisters.

Are they related in any way?

Yes. The answer is obvious. The definition of sister is known.

Standing before you are a man and woman. They are married.

Are they related in any way?

Yes. The answer is obvious. The definition of married is known.

Standing before you are two men. They are sisters and married.

Are they related in any way?

They may be, but not by those terms and their specific definitions.

Now, let's make up a new word - say, Drudged.

Drudged is like marriage, but it's two people of the same gender instead of one of each.

Now, are they related?

Well, yes and no. They are by definition. But, if you look in the law books, the answer is no - sort of. It's not defined in the law. There's no benefits for drudged persons.

So, to obtain legal benefit, the State must bestow it.

Marriage is a right. Drudging is a right. Recognized by the State is a State right.

Two guys can't be sisters and two women can't be brothers. Either change the definition or change the law.

what are you saying
the actions of the one equate the actions of all?

Posted by klifferd


Yeah, come on guys!! When thinking of Muslims, don't let hundreds of millions of bad apples spoil the bunch...

"what are you saying
the actions of the one equate the actions of all?"

Are you actually arguing that whites beating their wives is as systematic and widespread as the derogation of Muslim women?

in the united states
YES

"no, it just would have said they wouldn't be legally recognized as married, because marriage would be between a man and a woman."

Not true. Reread the language of the FMA.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or group. (emphasis mine)

This would deny the ability to be on a same-sex partner's health care, or a second-to-die pension, to name a few.

estimates up to 2.5 million american woman a year


thats almost 1% of the population

"in the united states
YES"

Since when is a conversation about how Muslims treat women limited to the United States? Most Muslims live elsewhere.

joe

the guy was talking about his experience
seeing a burka'd woman on the streets of chicago

we're talking america
here

there is still 6 million muslims in america
and most of them if you saw
you wouldn't know were muslim.

arabs treat woman bad - yes i agree

too bad the biggest muslim population is not arabia, it is indonesia
and no one ever says "them chinky eyed moslems"

"Standing before you are two men. They are sisters and married."

Some posts defy comment.

there is still 6 million muslims in america

shit

yup
rob
and we're growing

hide
;)

Yeah, come on guys!! When thinking of Muslims, don't let hundreds of millions of bad apples spoil the bunch...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-01-14 12:58 PM | Reply


Why let 98% of them ruin it for the other 2%?

This would deny the ability to be on a same-sex partner's health care, or a second-to-die pension, to name a few.


Posted by Danf


Look, I wasn't in favor of the marriage stuff in 2004... I saw it for what it was. A way to get evangelicals out in droves. But I still don't see it your way... its not making them second class citizens. If it does, then me not being able to park in a handicapped spot makes me second class, or a childless couple not getting as many tax breaks as I do makes them a second class citizen.

yup
rob
and we're growing

hide
;)


Posted by klifferd


hahaha... um... its not going to come to that... wait and see. One more big attack against this nation by muslims and things will change.

Practice your pronounciations now Kliffy: Aboot not About.

Sure, the outcome of the case was the mscegenation statutes were struck down, but the court's very basis for doing so was repeatedly stated as a Constitutional right to marriage.

Posted by JOE at 2008-01-14 12:43 PM

Joe, like many law students, you are overly eager to read a little too much into opinions where most courts at all levels, in interpreting and applying precedent, would fear to tread.

Especially in the context of "creating" a constitutional right...buzz words like "fundamental freedom" and "vital personal rights" show Warren's personal views on how important these rights are, but at the end of the day, the due process and equal protection clauses are what is being involked to strike down the miscegenation laws, not some newly recognized constitutional right to marry.

I agree with LCL and his friends, while the Loving case may ultimately be cited favorably by SCOTUS in a same sex marriage case, most of America is not ready for that yet.

Rob
i'm never going to canada

and one more attack
will just mean more muslims in america

thats what happened after 911
the conversion rate went UP
not down :-P

"But I still don't see it your way"

Then how would you define "marital status or the legal incidents thereof"?

Klifferd,

I call it like I see it. If a man beats his wife, it's a crime. She can go to the cops and have him arrested.
The vast majority of white men agree that the wife beating white man belongs in jail, and we made it a crime.

Would you make the wearing of a burka a crime? If a muslim man forces his wife to wear a burka, would you have him arrested?
Saying that you don't force your wife to do it isn't good enough.

Get burka wearing and the vile treatment of women out of your religion, and I'll change my mind accordingly.

The ball is in your court if you don't like the fact that muslims make themselves second class.

Why let 98% of them ruin it for the other 2%?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-01-14 01:21 PM

LOL and welcome back.

If a muslim man forces his wife to wear a burka, would you have him arrested?


YES
forcing a woman into anything for any reason
is against the rights of that Woman

plus the burka is not part of the religion

no where in the koran does it say wear a ninja outfit

Then how would you define "marital status or the legal incidents thereof"?

Do you mean the legal status of Gays? I would define it in that they aren't. that they can't be.

Oh, and my company has a design center in Malaysia, and it's very easy to tell who's a muslim woman, because they're all in headscarves and covered head to toe.

Don't act like it's all the arab's problem.

norm

have you asked the woman who made them wear a headscarf

which is not a burka

a burka looks like a ninja outfit

nuns wear headscarves too

YES
forcing a woman into anything for any reason
is against the rights of that Woman

Well then we're on the same side. Convince the other 98% and we're all set.

i also have a muslim female friend in malaysia

she's a model

doesn't wear a headscarf

how would you tell???

where are you getting this 98% number from

maybe you can point me to the link

she's a model

doesn't wear a headscarf

Posted by klifferd


Is that because she is lacking a head?

rob
haha
no she's pretty hot

where are you getting this 98% number from

maybe you can point me to the link

Posted by klifferd


www.islam.com

"Do you mean the legal status of Gays? "

No, I mean all the "legal incidents thereof" which amount to over 1,000 rights you & your wife, and my wife & I, got the moment we said "I do". Currently, some of those rights can be obtained by jumping through legal hoops, some by jumping through legal hoops only with a lawyer, and some, like SS survivor's benefits, the right to be on their partner's health care, or equal rights to a second-to-die pension, cannot be obtained regardless. The FMA would have put these equalities out of reach forever, a de facto creation of a second-class citizenry.

And your other examples are bogus: if you become handicapped, you can park in those spaces. If childless, you can have kids. (Like I need to tell you that last part!)

"at the end of the day, the due process and equal protection clauses are what is being involked to strike down the miscegenation laws, not some newly recognized constitutional right to marry."

Except that they used the term "right to marry" in the opinion. Like most legal pros on this site, you're all to eager to pretend you know more about the constitution than a supreme court justice.

No, I mean all the "legal incidents thereof" which amount to over 1,000 rights you & your wife, and my wife & I, got the moment we said "I do".

The benefits of being a straight. Sorry. But when Marriage was created by people, it was created for Men and Women, so the laws were written for us.

Like better parking if you are paralyzed, or more tax credits if you can have kids.

If childless, you can have kids. (Like I need to tell you that last part!)

Some people are unable to.

which amount to over 1,000 rights

Oh and they aren't "rights" any more then a paralyzed man has a right to convenient parking.

have you asked the woman who made them wear a headscarf

Look, if you want to play the game that millions of women chose all by themselves act unclean and cover themselves, then we don't have much to talk about.

It's a systematic opression, and it's disgusting. I don't see the muslim men covering themselves head to toe, it's only the women. Why are only the women unclean?
They'll give you some brainwashed answer about how it's their choice and an act of modesty, but that's all it is, the brainwashing of girls told since birth that they had to cover up and hide from the world, and be 'modest'.
And more often than not, it is heavily implied that if the woman doesn't wear the scarf, her family will reject her.

I'll never accept the headscarf as anything more than a sign of bondage. It's a control.

And you should be rejecting it wholesale, not defending it.

And yes, the nun's habbit is dumb. The same symbol of bondage and control.

"Sorry. But when Marriage was created by people, it was created for Men and Women, so the laws were written for us."

I understand that marriage is traditionally between men and women. But when the government decided to get involved in marriage, and started to confer certain benefits upon married couples, they officially sanctioned a practice that gay couples are prohibited from participating in. By not offering an alternative whereby gay couples may receive the same benefits, the state is officially participating in discrimination.

By not offering an alternative whereby gay couples may receive the same benefits, the state is officially participating in discrimination.


Not to get all santorum-y here, but then why not men who want to marry multiple women, or women who want to marry multiple men...

Seems like there will be always be a group screaming discrimination.

Except that they used the term "right to marry" in the opinion. Like most legal pros on this site, you're all to eager to pretend you know more about the constitution than a supreme court justice.

Posted by JOE at 2008-01-14 01:41 PM

But that is in the context of a "personal" right as opposed to a constitutional right, which SCOTUS did not create in Loving.

While I have no pretenses regarding what I do or do not know, I have argued in front of the California Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, and the Ninth, Second, Fourth and Federal Circuits over the past 19 years, but have never gotten Certiorari in 4 attempts (although I am admitted to argue before SCOTUS if the occasion ever arises), so I do have some context for my read of Loving.

Or what about people who just don't want to get married... they want to stay single and not deal with fucking stupid women.

"to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status."

And of your list which are the rights, which are the benefits and which are the privileges?

"why not men who want to marry multiple women"

Contract law.

The marriage contract confers superseding rights to one person, your partner. By definition, one cannot give superseding rights to multiple people.

"why not men who want to marry multiple women, or women who want to marry multiple men..."

I think that the point of the state conferring benefits upon married couples is to encourage what they deem to be behavior that is beneficial to society. I have a hard time believing that a couple of gay people are as whacked out as people who want to practice polygamy, but that's a matter of personal opinion. Which is why the state shouldn't be involved in conferring benefits upon people based on the traditions of a particular church in the first place - where's the objectivity or secularism in that?

I'd just as soon see the government out of the marriage game and allow married couples of any race, gender, whatever apply for whatever civil rights the government wants to grant to committed couples or families.

"And of your list which are the rights, which are the benefits and which are the privileges?"

Call them what you will. I don't give a damn what the specific numbers are. Unequal is unequal, even if it's only ONE right. I refuse to get into a discussion of semantics, when the semantics have no bearing on the reality. It all boils down to this:

Would you trade your rights, today, for the rights of a gay man?

"But that is in the context of a "personal" right as opposed to a constitutional right, which SCOTUS did not create in Loving."

Your differentiation between personal rights and constitutional rights seems to conflict with the following portion of Loving:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

In sum, deprivation of liberty is violative of the Constitution. Freedom to marry might be a "personal" right as you called it, but it is still subject to the same 14th Amendment protections as any other Constitutional right.

Would you trade your rights, today, for the rights of a gay man?

Posted by Danforth


My right to Free Speech... same

My right to Religion... same

My right to own a gun... same

My right to a jury of my peers... same

and so on and so forth...

So because Rob can list some rights that are the same, that means that all rights are the same.

Answer his question, Rob. Would you trade your rights today for those of a gay man, or wouldn't you?

So you can name a few common rights, and you think that's the whole picture? Don't make me laugh.

Your right not to testify against your spouse...gone.

Your wife's right to your social security benefit once you die (or vice versa)...gone.

The fact your child is legally both of yours...gone.

The right for the non-custodial parent to make health decision for the child..gone.

The right for you to be on your wife's health care, or vice versa...gone.

The right to make decisions for your wife should she become incapacitated...gone.

Your right to inherit in the absence of a will...gone.

Your right to a second-to-die pension...gone.

Your right to own property jointly without incurring gift tax...gone.

and so on and so forth...


Again, yes or no: would you trade your rights for the rights of a gay man?

Joe-

Read your own quote:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That is part of the holding, that the statutes violate the 14th Amendment.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

This is dicta involking "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence, which confers no precedential authority.

I agree that the language in Loving is very strongly in support of an argument that bans against same sex marriage could violate equal protection and due process, but that issue has not gotten in front of the Court as of yet.

"the Declaration of Independence, which confers no precedential authority"

Yet it explains our intent in crafting the Constitution, and should be the reference point when we're unsure. The line reads "all men are created equal". No one with more than half a brain would call today's conditions "equal".

RightoCenter-

Read your own post. The Fifth Amendment reads that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and the Loving v. Virginia holding states that "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law." Therefore, the court used the Due Process clause to protect the right to marriage, which is considered to be a liberty granted to all Americans and protected by the Constitution.

John McCain -- globalist, war hawk Bush toady -- leads the GOP frontrunners? Tells you all you need to know that voting Republican is going to be 4 more years of George W. Bush -- by proxy.

Answer his question, Rob. Would you trade your rights today for those of a gay man, or wouldn't you?

Posted by JOE


Our RIGHTS are the same...

Would you trade your rights today for those of a handicapped man? You'd get better parking... apparently that is a RIGHT too.

Again, yes or no: would you trade your rights for the rights of a gay man?



Posted by Danforth


Danforth, you put "Right" in front of your list, but I don't see them as "rights." I see "rights" as something granted to ALL Americans regardless, or race, creed, color, lifestyle choice...

"you put "Right" in front of your list, but I don't see them as "rights."

I've already addressed that, @ 14:02. RIF.

"I see "rights" as something granted to ALL Americans regardless, or(sic) race, creed, color, lifestyle choice..."

Oh, I get it now. You have to make up your own definition of what is and is not a "right" to pretend you're not getting your ass handed to you.

"Our RIGHTS are the same... "

If you truly believe that, you're an idiot.

Joe, I agree with ROC. Where the disconnect comes in is the analysis of the due process and equal protection clauses as it pertains to the law in Virginia regarding marriage- there is nothing but dicta about the right to marriage, and certainly nothing that says "marriage is a right under the Constitution of the United States", which is what, IMHO, would be required for the creation of a constitutional right by the SCOTUS.

to pretend you're not getting your ass handed to you.

I love when posters decide they are winning... lol... no I'm kicking your ass... there now I'm tough too

Is being of drinking age a right? Smoking? In NY is my right to drive after 9PM when I turn 18 equal to my right to vote?

The RIGHTS of gays, and the RIGHTS of straights are equal... getting married is not a right.

And so if as you say Gays are having their rights trampled on, and that it is their God given right to marry and be extended the same priviliges and benefits of straight married copules, then surely the Supreme Court would have weighed in by now and said that yes, marriage laws apply to Gay men and women and from that moment forward can be married in the eyes of the government... right?

"...the Republican presidential race completely upended with Sen. John McCain now leading solidly across the country. McCain is in front with 33%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 18%, Rudy Giuliani at 10%, Mitt Romney at 8%, and Fred Thompson at 8%."

Beautiful.

Excuse me, Danforth, but now you seem to be the one drawing up Constitutional rights out of whole cloth. I remind you of a post from last week, when I asked whether my having to present an ID card to climb aboard an aircraft is Constitutional, to which you replied:
* * *
"As an American, I have a right to travel."

But that right--climbing aboard an airplane---is not enshrined in the Constitution. Neither is the right to drink.

Posted by Danforth
* * *

Now you ask:
Your right not to testify against your spouse...gone.

Your wife's right to your social security benefit once you die (or vice versa)...gone.

The fact your child is legally both of yours...gone.

The right for the non-custodial parent to make health decision for the child..gone.

The right for you to be on your wife's health care, or vice versa...gone.

The right to make decisions for your wife should she become incapacitated...gone.

Your right to inherit in the absence of a will...gone.

Your right to a second-to-die pension...gone.

Your right to own property jointly without incurring gift tax...gone.

and so on and so forth...


Again, yes or no: would you trade your rights for the rights of a gay man?



Posted by Danforth
* * * * *
None of the "rights" you listed above are enshrined in the Constitution, either--right to leave property, designate durable powers of attorney, and so on. I see your point, and am always impressed by liberals' nimbleness in attacking one argument today, then employing it out for convenience's sake tomorrow. But Rob is right: the rights enshrined in the Constitution accrue benefits to all Americans equally. But since you asked a rhetorical question, I'll give you a rhetorical answer: a gay man in Georgia has more "rights" than a straight man in Massachusetts, if the right to keep more of one's income and the right to live generally free of municipal government interferences can be registered in the same way as your healthcare beneficiaries.

Closer parking for the handicapped is not equal protection under the law. Only the handicapped receive the benefit, so it is discrimination of the unhandicapped.

If the gay community wants marriage without the benefits under the law, will they take it?

If the gay community wants the benefits under the law without marriage, would they take it?

I'm married. I'd take that without any of the rights connected to it. I'm happy. I don't need those benefits.

Personally, the benefits shouldn't have the tag "must be married".

"And so if as you say Gays are having their rights trampled on, and that it is their God given right to marry and be extended the same priviliges and benefits of straight married copules, then surely the Supreme Court would have weighed in by now and said that yes, marriage laws apply to Gay men and women and from that moment forward can be married in the eyes of the government... right?"

I love it. Rob's using the same argument as the segregationists.

common law marriage.

Something about using the other person's name in a married-way can actually be construed as you are married.

Two men do this. If they get caught, common law doesn't make them married. Man and a woman, you're married. Want to marry someone else, you'll need a divorce. The gay couple doesn't.

"None of the "rights" you listed above are enshrined in the Constitution"

So what do you call the ability to refuse to testify against your spouse?

A privilege? A benefit?

Or is that your right?

Not all "rights" are in the constitution. Some are codified in law.

LeftCoastLawyer-

"there is nothing but dicta about the right to marriage, and certainly nothing that says "marriage is a right under the Constitution of the United States"

I'd have to disagree with you there. You and ROC are making great efforts at disconnecting the fact that the SC used the term "right to marry" in the sentence directly following the one stating that miscegenation statutes violate liberty without due process of law. This entire paragraph was one idea. The court considered the right to marry to be a liberty. That liberty was violated without Due Process of law. To claim that that liberty is somehow not supported by the Constitution is asinine. The Constitution is what contains the DP Clause. The DP Clause is what was used to protect the liberty that is marriage rights.

So, change the law to say spouse or significant other?

Just change the law.

I love it. Rob's using the same argument as the segregationists.

Posted by Danforth


Now I'm a racist because I believe in our Supreme Court's ability to decide Constitutional issues. Oh you sure are handing me my ass here Danforth... way to play that race card... cuz that's how you win a debate.

In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, stated:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also (for example,) the right * * * to marry, establish a home and bring up children."

"This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights."
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479

"This Court recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, that the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children' was an essential part of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."
Griswold v. Connecticut

You're joking, right?

You're the one who brought up the "today is utopia" argument. Using your logic, there's no need for the SC to hear anything, because "surely the Supreme Court would have weighed in by now".

"The right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right."

Levinson v. Washington Horse Racing Com'n
48 Wash.App. 822

So what do you call the ability to refuse to testify against your spouse?

A privilege? A benefit?

Or is that your right?

Not all "rights" are in the constitution. Some are codified in law.

Posted by Danforth
* * * * *

As far as I'm concerned, a right is a right. It was you who made the distinction last week that a right to vote somehow superceded other ones, because they were "enshrined in the Constitution".

Who has more rights? A straight man in Massachusetts, or a gay man in Florida? The Floridian can smoke in bars and restaurants. He pays no state or local income tax. If he works for any one of thousands of companies, he IS allowed to do all those things with his healthcare, his pension, and his survivorship benefits that his straight co-workers do. Or, failing that, he can get an attorney and draft the appropriate documents to do so. Now while the gay man can legally marry in Massachusetts--an issue on which I'm an agnostic, frankly--surprisingly few people are actually bothering to do so. One would have supposed that Massachusetts would have been beseiged by tens of thousands of gay couples who hear how many more rights they have in Massachusetts than elsewhere. But the actual number is only in the dozens.

Wonder why. Maybe it's because gays know that, despite all the rhetoric, they enjoy the same rights as the straight neighbors. Or maybe they don't, but it's not worth a plane ride to Massachusetts to exercise them.

"Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
Zablocki v. Redhail
434 U.S. 374

"It now seems settled beyond peradventure that the right to marry is a fundamental one, as that term is applied in the area of federal constitutional law."
Holt v. Shelton
341 F.Supp. 821

Let the crickets begin...

You're joking, right?

Oh, I'm sorry you didn't compare me to a segregationist? Maybe I misread above when you said I was using the same arguments they used... I guess that's my bad... tool.

"you didn't compare me to a segregationist? "

Only in the depths of your idiocy. I certainly didn't call you a racist, you little whiner. Get the sand out of your mangina.

"Oh, I'm sorry you didn't compare me to a segregationist?"

I thought he compared your argument to that of a segregationist. I thought the point of doing so was to illustrate that their stupid argument was eventually shown to be stupid in a court of law. Perhaps I was wrong.

Thanks for admitting the current situation is unequal.


Damn!! You want your cake and you want to eat it.

It's more progress than I thought they would get at this point.

"Damn!! You want your cake and you want to eat it."

How would you feel if you had to pay lawyers' fees to get what all your neighbors got for free?

"It's more progress than I thought they would get at this point."

How positively benevolent of you.

How would you feel if you had to pay lawyers' fees to get what all your neighbors got for free?
* * * *

Who says you have to?

1. Request beneficiary change form
2. Fill out form
3. Return form

And, in the case of a will, do the following:

1. Write: "I, Bill Smith, do hereby designate Mr. Tom Jones of 1234 Main Street, Anytown USA, my domestic partner, to be my sole heir and beneficiary of all earthly effects, and all rights accruing thereunder."

2. Sign and date it
3. Get it notarized
4. Put it into a file cabinet with your other important papers, with instructions to Mr. Jones as to how to get to it upon your death.

4. Put it into a file cabinet with your other important papers, with instructions to Mr. Jones as to how to get to it upon your death.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-01-14 04:29 PM | Reply


"Tom, you know that drawer we keep the 18" dildo?"
"Uh-huh"
"OK, it's not that one, but the one below it."
"The one with the bag of monkey shit, ball gag, saran wrap, and picture of David Hasselhoff from the Night Rider days?"
"That's the one!"

1. Write: "I, Bill Smith, do hereby designate Mr. Tom Jones of 1234 Main Street, Anytown USA, my domestic partner, to be my sole heir and beneficiary of all earthly effects, and all rights accruing thereunder."
2. Sign and date it
3. Get it notarized
4. Put it into a file cabinet with your other important papers, with instructions to Mr. Jones as to how to get to it upon your death.



You act as though everyone knows to do this without the advice of a lawyer. You act as though all people even know what a notary is or how to get one. You might think that people who don't know or care to look up the laws are stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws don't apply equally in the event that there isn't a valid will.

How positively benevolent of you.


I was already being sarcastic. You didn't neet to return the favor.

LOL

You might think that people who don't know or care to look up the laws are stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws don't apply equally in the event that there isn't a valid will.

Posted by JOE
* * * *

But they do. If you die without a will, the probate court decides what they're going to do with your stuff. Doesn't matter if you're straight or gay or Michael Jackson.

If you love somebody, write it down on a piece of paper. And if it's too much of a bother to write it down, don't pretend to me that you love him. See how simple that is?

"1. Request beneficiary change form
2. Fill out form
3. Return form"

Great! Now, how is that done to guarantee a second-to-die pension, to keep one partner from being forced to testify against the other, or to get equal parenting rights after adopting a child?

"Write: "I, Bill Smith, do hereby designate Mr. Tom Jones of 1234 Main Street, Anytown USA, my domestic partner, to be my sole heir and beneficiary of all earthly effects, and all rights accruing thereunder.""

So if Bill does that, will Tom get to roll Bill's IRA's into his own, like my wife will get to do, or will Tom have to cash it all out the first year and lose the tax advantages for the rest of his life and the life of his children?

Oops. No form for that, huh?

You act as though everyone knows to do this without the advice of a lawyer. You act as though all people even know what a notary is or how to get one. You might think that people who don't know or care to look up the laws are stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws don't apply equally in the event that there isn't a valid will.

Now we are going to defend gay people who are "demanding their rights" who are too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the ground?

I don't think that is a good argument for a group of people who believe their rights are being denied.

"Now we are going to defend gay people who are "demanding their rights" who are too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the ground?"

Why not? Dumbass straight people are protected in that manner.

"But they do. If you die without a will, the probate court decides what they're going to do with your stuff."

Correct. But that isn't the extent of the law. If you are married, the probate court will give some of your stuff to your spouse. If you are gay, the person who would have been your spouse but for restrictions within the law gets nothing.

"If you love somebody, write it down on a piece of paper. And if it's too much of a bother to write it down, don't pretend to me that you love him. See how simple that is?"

I see. So now, even straight people who never made a will didn't love their spouse. The lengths you'll go to defend bigotry within the law is astounding. You're usually far more rational.

Why not? Dumbass straight people are protected in that manner.

Then I suppose it was a waste of time for my wife and I to do have a will or to have trusts set up? I also didnt' need to make sure she is listed as beneficiary of my IRAs and vice-versa?

I can just "wish" it and my "dumbass" will be protected??

"Now we are going to defend gay people who are "demanding their rights" who are too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the ground?"

The fact is that straight people who don't make a will are protected, while gay people who would have gotten married had the law allowed them to are not protected.

Furthermore, I object to the notion that everyone who dies without a will is stupid. Many people die young in some sort of accident before they ever dreamed of having to plan for their death. They might not have been the most forward-thinking people in the bunch, but huge fortunes have been fought over in court that were amassed by someone with a big brain.

Do you have a will?

Let the crickets begin...

Posted by JOE at 2008-01-14 03:52 PM

Sorry, but I had to get some lunch with a couple of my associates. My point is that you are confusing a "fundamental" or "personal" right with a "constitutional" right...you are correct that the first two are generally protected under the equal protection or due process clauses, since those types of rights are usually codified into law. They are not, however, constitutional rights, like the right to privacy that we have here in CA, which is found in the CA constitution.

Under the US constitution there are certain rights, like the right to bear arms, that are recognized as such. But the right to marry, while recognized as fundamental, is not one of them.

P.S. You seem to like to argue, you would be wasted as a tax geek, IMO.

Do you have a will?

Yes. but you know better than me that we all have a will. Either you draft one yourself or you can use the one the state will have ready for you if you don't exercise your option of having your own.

"Then I suppose it was a waste of time for my wife and I to do have a will or to have trusts set up? I also didnt' need to make sure she is listed as beneficiary of my IRAs and vice-versa?

I can just "wish" it and my "dumbass" will be protected??"

The point here is that most (if not all) states have some law that allows a spouse to receive X percent (usually 33 or 50) of the deceased spouse's estate. There are more benefits associated with setting up a system of trusts along with your will than simply being able to direct money or property toward a spouse.

Put 2 and 2 together. Gay people cannot be a "spouse" and therefore cannot receive the automatic benefit that a straight married person receives in the event there was a will. So yes, as a straight person, you could just "wish" and it would happen. Just not how you might have wanted it to.

"My point is that you are confusing a "fundamental" or "personal" right with a "constitutional" right"

So, when a court refers to something as a "fundamental constitutional right," which is it?

And what does any of this have to do with tax? Have you ever seen me talk tax law on the site? If not, you have no frame of reference.

You seem to like to argue, you would be wasted as a tax geek, IMO.

Are you kidding? Tax/Corporate law is the most ruthless there is, you just don't see it in the courtroom to often. And if you have ever dealt with a dispute over a will you will know it never gets more personal for the parties involved which tends to get really, really ruthless.

Plus, there is nothing greater than being able to tell someone who works for the IRS to stick it where the sun don't shine.

"I also didnt' need to make sure she is listed as beneficiary of my IRAs and vice-versa?"

But your spouse would be able to roll your IRAs into her own, with no penalty. Not so for a gay surviving partner.

Similarly, a spouse is automatically the beneficiary of an earned pension, say from GM or the government. She must actively sign a waiver to NOT be the beneficiary. Not so for a gay couple.

Furthermore, I object to the notion that everyone who dies without a will is stupid.

Objection overruled.

If it is a gay person(with assets) who is complaining about what rights they are being denied while failing to exercise the rights they DO have then your definition of stupid is different than mine.

BTW, I would apply the same definition to a straight person as well.

"BTW, I would apply the same definition to a straight person as well."

That's fine with me. As long as you acknowledge the fact that whatever you want to call the person who doesn't exercise their rights, the straight "stupid people" have spousal protection that gay "stupid people" have no access to.

Here's how these arguments always go:


"Straight people who do X are protected by law.
Gay people who do X are not protected by law."

"Yeah, but people who do X are stupid."


How does that justify the difference in treatment?

"...complaining about what rights they are being denied while failing to exercise the rights they DO have...."

You do realize, don't you, some good honest folk can't afford lawyers' fees?

"Exercising" all those rights: thousands of dollars.

Getting all those rights for my wife and I: zero dollars.

Being born straight in America vs. being born gay: priceless.

Joe/Danforth,

I never argued that it was totally equal. I only aruged that stupid is as stupid does. You both took this right back to your original point.

I get it.


You do realize, don't you, some good honest folk can't afford lawyers' fees?

I was only referring to folks with assets.

Montecore,

How do you find things like "The online magazine of health and fitness for transsexual and transgendered people." Was one of your New Years Resolutions to start working out again?

Better call it off before one of them gets hurt.

projecting your own lifestyle on the rest of us?

"If you love somebody, write it down on a piece of paper. And if it's too much of a bother to write it down, don't pretend to me that you love him. See how simple that is?"

I see. So now, even straight people who never made a will didn't love their spouse. The lengths you'll go to defend bigotry within the law is astounding. You're usually far more rational.

Posted by JOE

* * * *

Actually, I tell straight, married people the same thing. So how is it bigotry?

Yes--if you're a husband and father--especially if you have young children--and don't have a plan to provide for your wife and kids in the event of your premature demise, you don't love them enough. If you can find the money to buy giant TV sets, fishing trips with your buddies, beer on the weekends, new mud flaps for your pickups--but you can't find the money to put thirty dollars a month into a good term life insurance policy, you're a selfish SOB.
And if you're a gay man who says you love your partner, you can't use antisodomy laws in Texas to disguise the FACT that with a simple form you can download on the Internet, you can leave everything to him. And your failure to do so has less to do with bigoted homophobes, than that you're just a selfish SOB.
Still simple. See?

"Actually, I tell straight, married people the same thing. So how is it bigotry?"

What you tell anyone isn't the bigotry, which is instead in the law itself. Once again - the stupid straight people who supposedly don't love their spouses enough STILL receive spousal protections from the state because they are married. Stupid gay people who supposedly don't love their partner enough don't have access to that protection. If you think that's fair, you're retarded. But don't pretend to people who don't know any better that everyone's on equal footing.

Joe,

Nicely done, good on you.

Your post here are very newsworthy.

All right, Joe. Let me tell you what I think is fair: if you're in a cohabitating relationship with another person, the state should consider you common-law. Straight, gay, whatever--if gays really want "equal protection under the laws" the way they claim, if they shack up for more than 96 hours, they are considered common-law spouses. And they can sue each other for alimony. And upon breakup, they get to go to court to have a judge tell them what belongs to whom.

After all, why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the miseries of matrimony? Why should homosexuals be able to shack up with whomever they wish, without the same legal issues that I would be subject to, were I to live with a woman? If you're a gay man living with another man, he MUST be the beneficiary of your IRA's, unless he agrees in writing on the beneficiary form not to be. Just like I have to.

Fair? Methinks so too.

"with a simple form you can download on the Internet, you can leave everything to him. "

So my gay clients can leave their IRA to their partner...great. Where's on the internet can they get the form to fill out, so the gay recipient gets the same inherited IRA treatment as the straight recipient?

Oh...that's right...no such place exists.

My wife will be able to roll my IRAs and my Personal 401(k) into hers when I pass, and enjoy the tax-deferred or tax-free benefits for years, if not decades, after. We have no kids, but should we or she decide to adopt, those benefits could be extended through the life of our child(ren).

A gay survivor, in contrast, will have no such options. He or she will have to claim all the monies as taxable income the first year (with the exception of Roths) and forego the tax benefits forever. And as for the kids enjoying the tax-deferred benefits? Fuggeddaboudit.

The difference could well be into the millions. Where's the form to prevent the discrepancy?

It is so very clear here, people like RIR don't care one iota about equality of rights, they are just bigotted toward gays and mask it under the sanctity of marriage religious crap.

This has nothing to do with how intellectually smart they are, it is ignorantly religious bound regardless of equality and what is frightening is they know it.

"The river tells no lies, though standing on its shores a dishonest man still hears them."

You're not paying attention Money. I don't give a damn one way or the other. And it's funny how people like me are demonized by both sides--either for not supporting the "sanctity of marriage", or for supporting the idea that gays should have a right to pick my pocket to the same extent that married couples do. So I say, to hell with all of them, on both sides.

Here's how I would fix the IRA rules: anyone can leave their IRA's, pensions, 401k's, to anyone else they choose, and the beneficiary can roll that money income-tax free into another qualified plan of their choice. I should be able to leave mine to my children or to my parents or to whomever I wish; the fact that I'm single is discriminatory in that respect.

Also, let's chuck the marriage deduction. Married filing jointly carries no higher deductions than single or head of household, except in the respect that you get another exemption.

This is fun. We're fixing all kinds of things, courtesy of this silly gay marriage debate. Whodda thought?

This is fun. We're fixing all kinds of things, courtesy of this silly gay marriage debate. Whodda thought?

This isn't fixing anything, and I find it funny that some how you have drawn equal rights between peoples to picking YOUR pocket of the precious money you so hoard.

Providing aid to family units doesn't remove the money from your pockets, regardless of marrital status, it increases it particularly in our nations economy.

I am very surprised you fail to see this.

LOL. Okay.

And this is a perfect example of why we (conservatives) believe the press is biased and why you cannot believe either CBS or the TIMEs (both Liberal)

You don't agree? Look at the bottom of the poll - Based on 1172 interviews of which only 282 were Republican and 580 Dem and the rest (about 310)"independents (in most polls these tend to be liberal leaning) so all the "National" items are skewed way left and the Republican sample is actually too small to be deemed reliable.

They also allowed the Dems and Independents to put up their views of which Rep. should be president.

The truth is that the Press does not believe that EITHER Hillary or Obama can be elected. So they need a LIBERAL republican to win so it would be someone that they could live with.