blame Washington (!) on page 4 (!)

[Van]

Jsc, your sole point seems to be that persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and thus granted protection by the Constitution: no exceptions.

Okay, again, then why should same-sex couples but not polygamists be treated as Constitutionally protected citzens? Do mulitple-partner relationships not involve persons? Why should persons in same-sex relationships be afforded greater protection than persons involved in other nontraditional relationships?

The Constitution? No mention of marriage whatsoever, of any type. However, since this is your lynchpin argument, well, as you posted...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"No exceptions," you emphasized.

Can't have it both ways, then. If we're to change the definition of 'marriage' by SCOTUS fiat, same-sex couples can't be the only nontraditionalists included as "persons"—and therefore protected citizens—under this new umbrella.

[Diego in Seattle]

Why do you feel compelled to force your views on those in other states? Shouldn't they have the same right and freedom to address this issue as the people in your state did?

Just another fine example of liberal double standards. :grin:

No, it's a matter of whether states have the right to deny individual rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

I'm sure the inbred, backwoods slob of a hick would like the answer to be yes so that slavery can be brought back.

The Seer & 88;
Please explain who would be effected by a popular vote on s/s marriage. TIA

[R-Jack]

If the people or the courts would just abolish marriage, I'd be happier than a butt-fucking stoner in Washington.

[mvscal]

Diego's slippery slope...

[Mace]

The Equal Protection Clause was the basis for the Iowa Supreme Court upholding a lower court decision to allow same sex marriage. The decision also got 3 of the Justices voted off the bench after a vigorous and expensive campaign by conservatives to get them removed. Another Iowa SC Justice was up for a retention vote his past election and, despite another campaign by opponents of the ruling, was retained by the voters and sent a message that Iowans don't really care if same sex couples are allowed to marry.....and I would be one of them.

Equal Protection Clause


The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

[smackaholic]

Can a dude in Iowa marry a sheep of the same sex, or does it have to be female?

[Derron]

(Left to right) jsc810, 88, diego

[Mace]

Leave it to Alec to put this topic into perspective so we can all understand and appreciate it. Thanks.

[missjo]

so adorable to see a Leather Daddy/boy, Bear pair who are so happy to get hitched!!

[Smackie Chan]

Can a dude in Iowa marry a sheep of the same sex, or does it have to be female?

Hey, fuck ewe!

[Mace]

Can a dude in Iowa marry a sheep of the same sex, or does it have to be female?

Why would anyone want to marry a sheep? Hell, they can't cook or even bring you a beer out of the fridge.

[Diego in Seattle]

Can a dude in Iowa marry a sheep of the same sex, or does it have to be female?

Why would anyone want to marry a sheep? Hell, they can't cook or even bring you a beer out of the fridge.

Agreed....that sounds like a baa-a-a-a-ad idea.

[smackaholic]

Can a dude in Iowa marry a sheep of the same sex, or does it have to be female?

Why would anyone want to marry a sheep? Hell, they can't cook or even bring you a beer out of the fridge.

Yeah, bit they can't bitch at you for not putting up the trim around the door out to the deck.

[LTS TRN 2]

Assault weapons are arms, you fucking idiot.

So is a bazooka, and a Gatling gun, and a fully automatic Uzi. So...are you really such a cardboard box of a fake cut-out of a disgusting fraud? Your logic would bore a cat. You are so utterly pathetic, predictable, witless, and fiercely anti-intellectual as to make one wonder if you're just some sort of plant--a stay-at home loser hired to flood boards with steady Rovian dementia.

Now look, you stupid fuckstain, the legal framework of gun ownership in this country is an arbitrary matter decided by authorities, period. The 2nd amendment is completely secondary. This is why bazookas are not allowed. They are illegal. Okay? Well, you disgusting dried puke puddle, assault weapons could--and obviously should--be on that very same list. The reason they're not is simply because of the disproportionate power of the NRA. Now if you actually had a partially working brain you might understand this. But then again, total frauds set on auto-spew are not expected to think or reason. So just go attempt to look in the mirror without getting queasy. I dare you.

[mvscal]

Assault weapons are arms, you fucking idiot.

So is a bazooka, and a Gatling gun, and a fully automatic Uzi. So...are you really such a cardboard box of a fake cut-out of a disgusting fraud? Your logic would bore a cat. You are so utterly pathetic, predictable, witless, and fiercely anti-intellectual as to make one wonder if you're just some sort of plant--a stay-at home loser hired to flood boards with steady Rovian dementia.

Now look, you stupid fuckstain, the legal framework of gun ownership in this country is an arbitrary matter decided by authorities, period. The 2nd amendment is completely secondary. This is why bazookas are not allowed. They are illegal. Okay? Well, you disgusting dried puke puddle, assault weapons could--and obviously should--be on that very same list. The reason they're not is simply because of the disproportionate power of the NRA. Now if you actually had a partially working brain you might understand this. But then again, total frauds set on auto-spew are not expected to think or reason. So just go attempt to look in the mirror without getting queasy. I dare you.

You're looking a little crispy around the edges, Felchie. I suppose that'll happen when you attempt to justify the blatantly unconstitutional restrictions which have encroached on the private ownership of arms over the years.

Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal. It would be rather difficult to do so without privately financed warships operated by the owner, so, yes, the Constitution clearly envisions NO restrictions whatsover on the private ownership of weaponry. It even says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. Or is there something you find confusing about the phrase "shall not be infringed"?

Nice melt, though. If we are willing to accept restrictions on one fundamental right, why not on others? Or are some rights more equal than others?

[War Wagon]

I own several pairs of knee pads just like those.

~Gaysc810

[Diego in Seattle]

Assault weapons are arms, you fucking idiot.

So is a bazooka, and a Gatling gun, and a fully automatic Uzi. So...are you really such a cardboard box of a fake cut-out of a disgusting fraud? Your logic would bore a cat. You are so utterly pathetic, predictable, witless, and fiercely anti-intellectual as to make one wonder if you're just some sort of plant--a stay-at home loser hired to flood boards with steady Rovian dementia.

Now look, you stupid fuckstain, the legal framework of gun ownership in this country is an arbitrary matter decided by authorities, period. The 2nd amendment is completely secondary. This is why bazookas are not allowed. They are illegal. Okay? Well, you disgusting dried puke puddle, assault weapons could--and obviously should--be on that very same list. The reason they're not is simply because of the disproportionate power of the NRA. Now if you actually had a partially working brain you might understand this. But then again, total frauds set on auto-spew are not expected to think or reason. So just go attempt to look in the mirror without getting queasy. I dare you.

You're looking a little crispy around the edges, Felchie. I suppose that'll happen when you attempt to justify the blatantly unconstitutional restrictions which have encroached on the private ownership of arms over the years.

Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal. It would be rather difficult to do so without privately financed warships operated by the owner, so, yes, the Constitution clearly envisions NO restrictions whatsover on the private ownership of weaponry. It even says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. Or is there something you find confusing about the phrase "shall not be infringed"?

Nice melt, though. If we are willing to accept restrictions on one fundamental right, why not on others? Or are some rights more equal than others?

And what is the stated constitutional purpose of granting the right to bear arms?

[mvscal]

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, you fucking moron.

[LTS TRN 2]

Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal. It would be rather difficult to do so without privately financed warships operated by the owner, so, yes, the Constitution clearly envisions NO restrictions whatsover on the private ownership of weaponry. It even says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. Or is there something you find confusing about the phrase "shall not be infringed"?

Nice melt, though. If we are willing to accept restrictions on one fundamental right, why not on others? Or are some rights more equal than others?

So what if congress was granted the power to contract military assistance, as well as declare war? Marque and Reprisal was simply hiring privateers, or really offering a bounty if the licensed vessel scored some swag. The idea of linking this archaic system of Drake and Kidd to some supposed constitutional right of an American citizen to own a rocket launcher is as clear an example as any of the basic fallacy of the boxed libertarian single-malt mentality that you pretend to offer with a straight face. Of course Marque and Reprisal has long been abandoned as U.S. policy, and the hysterical post-9/11 suggestion of its reinstatement was declined. However, a rational discussion of that enumerated power might consider the current privatized military industry--defacto M&R-- having expanded to a degree and magnitude that would give each and every founding father a heart attack to consider. Meanwhile you're left in a little punt on a pond fishing with the remaining thread of your Hannity gak--that there should be absolute no infringement on your right to have as many grenade launchers as you like without trigger locks!!


If I've gotta give up the armor piercers they'll be back for the maxi-clips...slurpfuck libniggggggGGGGGGGGGSS....

[mvscal]

So what if congress was granted the power to contract military assistance, as well as declare war? Marque and Reprisal was simply hiring privateers...Of course Marque and Reprisal has long been abandoned as U.S. policy,

Sure about that?

[kcdave]

BWA! Not sure which is funnier. The 2 old pole puffers, or 88's dude pissing in the wind.

[LTS TRN 2]

So what if congress was granted the power to contract military assistance, as well as declare war? Marque and Reprisal was simply hiring privateers...Of course Marque and Reprisal has long been abandoned as U.S. policy,

Sure about that?

Yes, 1-malt, (your new name, you've earned it ) your giddy observation is exactly what would cause the founding fathers to freeze in frozen horror for a theatrical 20-sec "Noooooooo" before having a collective heart attack. And what, you're celebrating this scam? The billions of taxpayer dollars funneled into a few amoral (by law) corporations? Oh, that's right, you're really.. :wink: