Yet Another Federal Court Finds DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional.

No, they don't have the right to act like total perverted imbeciles in public. There are a few websites exposing what really goes on in those sad pathetic parades in broad daylight in front of children. I'm not going to post the links very very very adult material if you know what i mean. There is a reason why the Russians banned those sad pathetic miserable displays made by people who are clearly sociopaths and need to go to a mental hospital.

I just stated that the Nazi movement as a totally homo-supremacist movement created by sociopath perverts and you use the "Standard Cliché Overused Predictable Leftwing Argument(tm)". You "progressivists" are kind of robotic aren't you?[/QUOTE]

Hundreds here: http://www.massresistance.org/ (including an exposure of Mitt Romney the Gayocrat) and let's not go to the Gayocractic laws in the European Union...let's not even go that way...lol

 

You calling anybody a loser....very very funny.

And hate...OMG are you serious? Read you post Mensa boy.

 

I assume you also agree that Carnival and Mardi Gras should be banned as well and all Christians that participate in them should receive the same restrictions you want to put on gays, right?

Okay. You are okay with imprisoning people for behaviors that don't harm others and that actual non-communist ideologue psychiatrists say is not a mental disorder.

Good to know.

Fascist.

I'm not going through your gay bigot stormfront.

Present a single example of gays attempting to get benefits at the expense of heteros.

 

That doesn't make it right. Citing other mistakes does not invalidate this one.

John Paul Stevens. One of the most liberal judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court. When he wrote this his "conversion" from conservatism was complete so his words are what is expected of a liberal.

This ruling as I said opens the floodgates for all sexual practices to demand the exact same "right" to be validated under the newly expanded equal protection under the law clause.

There is a reason we have an amendment process. The far left wants to circumvent that process because they are in the minority and .

 

0-33.

That's your record with the last 2 as recent as a few years ago in direct votes by the people on gay marriage. You have NEVER won.

Majority of states have laws that ban gay marriage.

You are in the minority. Deal with it.

 

Apparently you think it is okay for the majority to vote and remove the rights of the minority.

 

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the Rational Basis review is a liberal conspiracy, to undermine the Constitution?

 

There are no rights to remove for gay marriage. They don't exist any more than they exist for polygamists or pedophiles.

Its how our system works. Or are you unfamiliar with a republic?

You want gay marriage? Propose an amendment.

 

Where did I say that? Nowhere.

If you want a meaningful conversation don't put words into my mouth and address the points I made to you.

 

Rights are not dependent on the tyranny of the majority. In a republic, the minority must be protected from excesses and violations of their liberties forced on them by the majority.

 

By that moronic argument any group can be considered a minority and demand the same new "rights" you claim exist for all minorities.

Which is it? Do we rule by republic or rule by minority?

 

Okay. Clearly I misunderstood your point.

The points of confusion must be related to where you point to Rational Basis as being a matter of partisanship.

Further, you point to Rational Basis as a method by which liberals bypass the Amendment process.

If it has to do with bypassing the Amendment process, which is what you said should be used for Rational Basis (I can't exactly understand what that means), then it is circumventing the Constitution. If the only people who you believe use Rational Basis are liberals, then it would follow that it is a liberal method of bypassing the Constitution.

Can you explain which part I misunderstood?

 

Just picking something from the back of my head. "Hate crime" laws that are the standard in Europe and are becoming the standard in the United States. An hetero can get beat up by homosexuals for being hetero and nothing out of the ordinary happens...the reverse is not true.

"Anti discrimination" laws in Europe and USA where heteros that can be fired by a "gay" employer because he is hetero but the reverse is a no-no.

I could go on and on.

As for the rest of your post...blah blah blah blah.

 

If what the majority thinks is aligned with what you say it's: "Power to the People!" if not: "Ohhh the tyranny of the majority!".

 

Bottom line is even if an issue would affect only ONE person and by affect I mean discriminate or less rights for, then the majorities opinion means ZERO.

 

Partisanship does not equal conspiracy. You made a leap that I never made.

Once again I said what one judge who obviously is liberal using emotion or personal judgement to decide a case instead of law. This isn't a new argument in liberal vs conservative. You cited another liberal judge to which I said that isn't a surprise.

To elevate that to a conspiracy as you claim I did would require proving I said there was active collusion by liberal judges something I never said.

Easily. I never said the judges are partaking consciously in that attempt to circumvent the Constitution. I said it was what the far left is doing by sending these cases to the courts looking for sympathetic judges who rely on emotion and personal judgement to settle case law instead of actually citing case law.

I'm still waiting for you to comment on what I have said twice to you now:

This ruling as I said opens the floodgates for all sexual practices to demand the exact same "right" to be validated under the newly expanded equal protection under the law clause.

 

I agree. I was wrong to characterize it as a Conspiracy. You did not say or imply that, and I'm sorry.

However, the fact is that claiming that Rational Basis is based on liberal partisanship, is so far removed from reality, that I can only gather you have no understanding of how the law works.

And no, I don't have any interest in dealing with the petty partisanship games, regardless of who puts it forth.

 

What "new" rights? Gays just want the same rights that the majority possesses and denies to them.

 

Do you have a quote from a specific US law that says that gays can fire or assault heteros and not be charged with a hate crime?

Maybe a quote from a hate crime law that specifically references only homosexuality and does not say sexuality in general?

Calling you out for advocating the imprisonment of gays is hardly "blah", but I can see why wouldn't want to address it and instead try to change the subject.

 

probably the same reason every year at martigras a bunch of drunken heterosexuals get naked and (*)(*)(*)(*) in the streets?

they don't.

they don't. same sex marriage has exactly zero effect on heterosexuals.

why would heterosexuality be outlawed? that's just silly.

yes, your entire post was insane.

 

If the rights of the minority infringe on the rights of the majority FLICK THE MINORITIES. And no mentally-sexually ill people don't have the right to marry because marriage is supposed to be between sexually healthy people of the opposite sex.

"Buahhh but how does their marriage affects you?!? Buahhh"

Why do they want their moronic pathetic pride parades? Why do they want the World to orbit around their sexual-mental illness? Why do they want special laws and rules at the expense of heterosexuals?

 

Do you want me to wipe your arse and make your food?

 

Please show me the facts that homosexuality is a mental illness? And you are going to have to do better than that, simply because you think marriage is only with a man and woman is not good enough.

 

Nope. I just want you to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims.