T1B

Martin Navratilova proposes to partner at US Open


Tennis great Martin Navratilova (R) and her partner Julia Lemigova celebrate after getting engaged at the US Open.
Photo: Reuters

NEW YORK: Tennis great Martin Navratilova has proposed to her girlfriend on the big screen of
Arthur Ashe Stadium between the US Open men's semi-finals...

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/mart ... 3f0xa.html



It's already a gigantic PC jerk off for Stadium Court at the U.S. Tennis Center to be named after Arthur Ashe, and now we've got a lesbian so self-absorbed and self-important that she feels a need to broadcast her lovings on the friggin' big screen inbetween the matches on men's semifinal day.

There's not a rolleyes thingy big enough to represent my disdain for this freak show.


x a lot

Julia has a nice rack. Gotta give her that.

On the fence here.

On the one hand, we have one of the all-time greats of the sport (which I would have to dig deep to give a fuck about an unwatchable sport) proposing.

On the other hand, it's some pretty serious "LOOK AT ME!!!!!!" shit.


I'll call it a wash.

Shit sport, shit cause*.



* -- I'm in favor of gay marriage, because there's no compelling, prudent reason for the government to dictate who marries who... in case you cared about my politics.

Don't get me wrong -- I think it's stupid and "gay" -- I just don't see a legitimate reason for the federal government to limit a Freedom (a CONSERVATIVE principle).

Not my business, as silly as I think it is. Just my soul-searching brought me to my "no reason to deny" stance.

Dins, you just opened the SF Gate for Jsc and Moving Fail to go 5 pages + with scroll wheel killing, legal nonsense.

You gotta admit those are some nice tits on that Julia dyke... before this thread gets buried with the soon-to-be legal arguments crap. See you in another thread that may be readable after they take over this one.

Martin has a buhzillion in the bank, only stands to reason she should pull bigtime.

And as far as the 810Teams argument goes -- I actually agree.

I laugh at the homos, but don't see a reason for the government to intervene in their silly homoness... if that makes sense. The government needs a compelling reason to restrict people from doing their deal, and I don't see where this affects anyone else's well-being.

I'm libertarian like that... nevermind how ridiculous the homo's argument is... it's become a rallying cry for me.

Big part of freedom is supporting that which you don't agree with (which I don't).

How did Zyclone manage to photo bomb the picture behind Martin/Hillary Clinton?

Dins, my intent here was not to start a political debate on homosexual "marriage," but since you went there, I'm curious...

Constitutionally, do you think individual states have the right to establish the marriage standard for their state?


I would find ANY self-important asshole pulling this "big screen marriage proposal during mens semifinal Saturday" stunt to be laffable and distasteful.
Hetero, homo, whatever...

But this one so obviously being just more of the aggressive homo agenda right up in our face makes it that much more ludicrous to me.

Childish.

poptart wrote:Dins, my intent here was not to start a political debate on homosexual "marriage," but since you went there, I'm curious...

Constitutionally, do you think individual states have the right to establish the marriage standard for their state?

Not as long as marriage includes rights & privileges that go with it. The 14th Amendment out front should tell you that (as well as the numerous appellate court judges who have ruled as such).

14th Amendment, section 1.

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.




Nobody's privileges or immunities are abridged when a state determines it will license something -- and then sets the criteria for obtaining a license.

Why can't a mature 14 year old sue (and win) because his privilege to drive has been abridged?

poptart wrote:14th Amendment, section 1.

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.




Nobody's privileges or immunities are abridged when a state determines it will license something -- and then sets the criteria for obtaining a license.

When certain privileges/immunities are only extended to citizens obtaining that license & the state restricts citizens from obtaining that license w/o due process, the state has violated the 14th Amendment. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Why can't a mature 14 year old sue (and win) because his privilege to drive has been abridged?

Because 14 year olds aren't adults, dumbass.

Diego wrote:Because 14 year olds aren't adults, dumbass.

16 year olds are not adults, either.
Do you want me to post a list of things 16 year olds are not allowed by law to do?


Why must one be an adult to drive, anyway?

Some children are more responsible and capable than some adults.

-- YOU MUST BE 16 -- is an arbitrary criteria which clearly discriminates against people under 16 who happen to be mature and capable enough to handle driving.


The mature 14 year old is having his privileges abridged.

Sincerely,

The 14th Amendment

14 y/o's are also not mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving a car. To allow them to drive would place the public at risk. Endangering people's lives is cause to deny 14 y/o's the right to drive.

Now if you can show how gays & lesbians getting married will harm people you've got a case....

I agree with dins on this one. In fact, I think the whole idea of government treating people differently based on whom they sleep/don't sleep wif is ridiculous.

Every one of us should be treated equally by government, including how far they reach into our pockets. Citizen X should pay Y taxes.......period. He should not pay a different rate if he Choses to suck cahk, regardless of pigment. I think even requiring him to pay a percentage of income is being pretty damn progressive. Anything beyond that is outright theft.

Of course abiding by such a policy would include getting rid of deductions. All of them. Want to have a ginormous house and pay 50% of your income in mortgage interest? Good on you, but don't expect a tax break. And do I even need to mention magic shade trees? But, if all these deductions went away, a good number of the lobby parasites would too and the elected parasites would have to pay for their own vacations/parties/hookers.

Atomic Punk wrote:Julia has a nice rack. Gotta give her that.

Julia Roberts?

Diego in Seattle wrote:14 y/o's are also not mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving a car. To allow them to drive would place the public at risk.

So are a lot of 50 year olds and Mexicans of any age bracket.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:14 y/o's are also not mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving a car. To allow them to drive would place the public at risk.

So are a lot of 50 year olds, Mexicans, and Asians of any age bracket.

FTFY@NC

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:14 y/o's are also not mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving a car. To allow them to drive would place the public at risk.

So are a lot of 50 year olds and Mexicans of any age bracket.

Most 50 y/o's are mature enough to handle the responsibility to drive. It's also the reason they're permitted to sign contracts when 14 y/o's aren't.

Deal with it, slappy.

poptart wrote:
Constitutionally, do you think individual states have the right to establish the marriage standard for their state?

My thoughts are similar to Diego's -- as long as the feds (or states, for that matter) are granting certain privileges to married folks, then no.

OK, certain "standards" can be implemented, but the choice of who one marries shouldn't be one of them.

It's actually a pretty massive can of worms, either way. But I don't see a compelling reason for the government to stick their nose that far in.

poptart wrote:
Constitutionally, do you think individual states have the right to establish the marriage standard for their state?

Where the fuck have you been the last few years ??

But this one so obviously being just more of the aggressive homo agenda right up in our face makes it that much more ludicrous to me.

Childish.

Staged photo op and then your disdain makes you post it on here. Had you not posted it, most of us on here would be in the " Who gives a fuck? " group.

There's not a rolleyes thingy big enough to represent my disdain for this freak show.

So disgusted you had to link it up WITH a picture of the carpet muncher's..got it....you posted it so you could get your fantasy off on Martin.

Derron wrote:...you could get your fantasy off on Martin.

Dins wrote:My thoughts are similar to Diego's -- as long as the feds (or states, for that matter) are granting certain privileges to married folks, then no.

OK, certain "standards" can be implemented, but the choice of who one marries shouldn't be one of them.

lol
And why not?

States routinely "discriminate" against people when they set a standard for receiving a given license.

poptart wrote:

Dins wrote:My thoughts are similar to Diego's -- as long as the feds (or states, for that matter) are granting certain privileges to married folks, then no.

OK, certain "standards" can be implemented, but the choice of who one marries shouldn't be one of them.

lol
And why not?

States routinely "discriminate" against people when they set a standard for receiving a given license.

Feel free to hook us up with an example of such a law that discriminates w/o a compelling reason.

I already did.

Do apples and oranges taste different in Korea?

Any adult can get a driver's license, unless they've proven it's unsafe (NEGATIVELY AFFECTS OTHERS) for them to have one.

Where's this "discrimination"? You're coming across as a loony.

Are 16 year olds adults, really?

As I asked Diego, do you want me to post a list of things 16 year olds are not legally allowed to do?


Could it be that YOU are the loon?

You're trying to pretend as if you're all about the Constitution, yet you pick out a pet point of "discrimination" to focus on, while other cases are all around you.

States routinely set standards for granting various licenses.

poptart wrote:Are 16 year olds adults, really?

As I asked Diego, do you want me to post a list of things 16 year olds are not legally allowed to do?


Could it be that YOU are the loon?

You're trying to pretend as if you're all about the Constitution, yet you pick out a pet point of "discrimination" to focus on, while other cases are all around you.

States routinely set standards for granting various licenses.

The only example you gave was that in most states licenses aren't issued to persons under the age of 16. But you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a compelling reason for restricting licenses to those who are 16 & older - public safety. Yes, there are some who are much older yet lack maturity, but the majority of those who are older than 15 do possess the maturity to operate a motor vehicle responsibly. Thus, your example fails to establish that an age requirement is discriminatory.

Any other failed arguments you want to run up the flagpole, dumkopf?

Yes, most states grant 16yo's the privilege of obtaining a driver's license. I'm not aware of any state forbidding homosexuals from getting a driver's license. I'm not sure I even understand your point. Your asinine tangent isn't relevant in the slightest.

At least in my state, the government makes it clear that driving is a "privilege," not a "right" (which could be debated). And the only time they restrict that privilege is... maybe you can have someone read this to you, since it's come up before... WHEN THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON TO DO SO.

Constitutionally, getting married is a "right" (multiple SCOTUS decisions). And there is no compelling reason for the government (be it state or federal) to dictate who a person can or cannot marry, since, as Diego pointed out, marriage carries certain privileges with it.

So as silly as two queers getting married is to me, I can't stretch my imagination far enough to come up with any compelling reason to restrict that right. Doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever... nor you, or anyone else.

Dinsdale wrote:Constitutionally, getting married is a "right" (multiple SCOTUS decisions). And there is no compelling reason for the government (be it state or federal) to dictate who a person can or cannot marry, since, as Diego pointed out, marriage carries certain privileges with it.

Total bullshit.

1) The Supreme Court makes many decisions which are quite ponderous, to say the least. Ever heard of Barrycare?

2) Part of being a champion of the Constitution is recognizing state's rights. You want an authority from on high to come down and tell the people of a state that they are not FREE to establish the standard for receiving a marriage license in their state. You advocate tyranny. Of course there are compelling reasons for a state establishing a marriage standard. Pop your head out of you ass and stop gobbling up the spoon-fed fag propaganda you get, and maybe you can figure some of them out.

Dinsdale wrote:Yes, most states grant 16yo's the privilege of obtaining a driver's license. I'm not aware of any state forbidding homosexuals from getting a driver's license. I'm not sure I even understand your point.

Marriage license.
Drivers license.
Food vending license.
Barber's license.
Liquor license.
Fishing license...

States require a given standard to be met for MANY licenses to be granted.
And having a license gives a person "benefits," or otherwise they would not be sought after.

You have a driver's license... because it is beneficial to you.
Some mature 15 year old is denied the benefit.
You're fine with it.

Hypocrite on high.

Dinsdale wrote:I can't stretch my imagination far enough to come up with any compelling reason to restrict that right.

Maybe YOU can't, but the people of the state of California sure could.
And they were told they are not allowed to think that way.

lol

The people of California were given a yes or no ballot choice on the issue of SSM. They were not required to give any reasons, compelling or not, for their decision. And either a compelling reason or due process is required before denying citizens their rights or privileges (14th Amendment).

If a state or states don't like the 14th Amendment they're free to either go about the process of amending it or leave the union. States don't get to choose which parts of the constitution they wish to uphold. Nor do they get to put individual rights up to popular votes. Deal with it, thumper.

Diego wrote:And either a compelling reason or due process is required before denying citizens their rights or privileges (14th Amendment).

All California adults would have been free to get a marriage license.
No rights or privileges denied.

The same as a mature 15 year old being free to get a license to drive... when he is 16.
But not if he wants to be a bitch, make up his own standards, and claim he can have one at 15, "BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY!!!!"

Children.

"Children?"

The best you can come up with for a compelling reason is "children?"

1) We're dealing with overpopulation as it is. We don't need more children.

2) There's no credible studies that show that parents of the same gender provide a worse environment for children than parents of both genders.

3) Why are you not calling for the restriction of marriage rights for infertile couples as well as older couples? If they aren't capable of having children, why not restrict their rights as well?

Your argument of "it's for the children" has been tried in the courts & shot down already. You want to give it another whiff errrrrrr try?

Diego in Seattle wrote:If a state or states don't like the 14th Amendment they're free to either go about the process of amending it or leave the union.

Uhhhhhh, no. No they aren't.

They should be, but a few of them tested that idea out awhile back and got a whole buncha folk deader than joan rivers.

Diego wrote:"Children?"

The best you can come up with for a compelling reason is "children?"

lol

Read the post again.

Children was my name for people like you who, despite a state's people, by popular vote, setting a rational standard for obtaining a marriage license, demand that a NEW standard must be adopted... "BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY!!."

Diego wrote:There's no credible studies that show that parents of the same gender provide a worse environment for children than parents of both genders.

Hippy dippy bullshit says fag couples raise up children, all things being equal, as well as a man/woman do.

What if the people of a state passed a ballot that said blacks and gingers can't get married?

I mean, it would be the will of the people, right?

As far as your 16yo getting a license... just stop. Last I checked, minors don't have full rights until they're adults, dumbass. Their rights are conveyed through their parents -- tell me you knew?

Please tell me you're trolling? Please?

And it's kind of funny that you complain about people and "because I want it that way" -- when that point can much more accurately be applied to...


you.



(Did I do that right, KC folks?)

It's pretty funny to watch poptart repeatedly get all worked up about gay folk. Methinks he doth protest too much.

He is pretty fired up about something the Constitution will ultimately be ruled to be in support of.

He's all about the Constitution, until it comes to dirty heathens.

Dinsdale wrote:


(Did I do that right, KC folks?)

Horseshoes and hand-grenades.

Dinsdale wrote:What if the people of a state passed a ballot that said blacks and gingers can't get married?

I believe it would violate the 14th amendment.

The people of Cali did not vote to prohibit any person from getting married, did they?

No, they did not.

All they did was define what they want marriage to be in their state.

Every adult in the state could get a marriage license.

Dinsdale wrote:As far as your 16yo getting a license... just stop. Last I checked, minors don't have full rights until they're adults, dumbass. Their rights are conveyed through their parents -- tell me you knew?

I have no idea what you are trying to convey here, but I'm sure it made sense to you.