Post: #76

   

Post: #77

This is a true outrage -- imposing gay "marriage" by judicial fiat on the population of a state whose vast majority is opposed to it.

Not one of the framers of the Constitution would even have been able to comprehend the idea of "gay marriage" -- hell, most people 20 years ago would be unable to comprehend it. Yet now it is supposed to be "unconstitutional" to ban it?

These Year Zero antics are going too far.

(12-20-2013 05:24 PM)MrXY Wrote:  Just heard a report that a federal judge in Utah of all places has held that the state's ban on gay marriage, passed by 66% of the voters, is unconstitutional. The absurd proposition that the U.S. Constitution requires gay marriage shows just how much success the cultural marxists are having. They have taken over the elite positions in society and are ramming their agenda down the throats of the populace with increasing arrogance and vitriol.

In the early years of the gay rights movement, their argument to the public was that they just wanted to be left alone and tolerated. But that was never the true agenda. The plan was always to attack the institution of marriage and the normality of heterosexuality, and to force people to approve of and "celebrate" homosexuality. Now, just as with the other tentacles of of cultural marxism-feminism and racial identity politics- not just open disagreement with the party line, but the least disapproval or and even a failure to be sufficiently enthusiastic about every point of the agenda makes one suspect and a target for retaliation.

My impression from the many accounts I've read are that people who are beholden to large institutions; such employees in large corporations, the government ,or students, are now living in fear and carefully censor their speech and interactions to avoid getting on the radar of management as being someone who might have dissenting views.

Post: #78

(12-20-2013 05:34 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

I think being non-white, anti-American and Muslim makes up for his anti-gay views.

Post: #79

(12-20-2013 05:35 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  This is a true outrage -- imposing gay "marriage" by judicial fiat on the population of a state whose vast majority is opposed to it.

Not one of the framers of the Constitution would even have been able to comprehend the idea of "gay marriage" -- hell, most people 20 years ago would be unable to comprehend it. Yet now it is supposed to be "unconstitutional" to ban it?

These Year Zero antics are going too far.

The main problem with this Constitutional arguments is that founding fathers wouldn't have comprehended that there'd be a black president either. We had to come back generations later and make slavery and segregation illegal.

Post: #80

(12-20-2013 06:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 05:35 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  This is a true outrage -- imposing gay "marriage" by judicial fiat on the population of a state whose vast majority is opposed to it.

Not one of the framers of the Constitution would even have been able to comprehend the idea of "gay marriage" -- hell, most people 20 years ago would be unable to comprehend it. Yet now it is supposed to be "unconstitutional" to ban it?

These Year Zero antics are going too far.

The main problem with this Constitutional arguments is that founding fathers wouldn't have comprehended that there'd be a black president either. We had to come back generations later and make slavery and segregation illegal.

Nope, there is no analogy here.

First, there is nothing incomprehensible about the idea of a black president -- they would not have liked the idea but they would certainly have understood it. The idea of two men being married is literally not something that they could have comprehended, and I can't blame them.

Black men have certainly ruled countries before; homosexual men were not "married" to each other in any human society that I know about (and if there is a meaningless exception somewhere, it changes nothing). It's a radically novel Year Zero idea that they are trying to present as if it was the most natural thing in the world.

Finally, we made slavery illegal by fighting the civil war and amending the Constitution. Not by judicial fiat imposed on an unwilling population.

Speakeasy, do you really believe that there is a "right" of two men to be "married" to each other that is in any way similar to the right of a man not to be a slave? That is an obviously absurd idea but this is what they're trying to sell us on.

Post: #81

Yeah he's grouping gays with blacks and other minority groups like white people usually do.

Post: #82

(12-20-2013 06:28 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Yeah he's grouping gays with blacks and other minority groups like white people usually do.

Are you referring to me? I'm not. What I'm saying is that the argument is that the framers of the Constitution didn't envision gay marriage, there's probably a lot of things the framers didn't envision, including racial equality under the law.

I'm not even pro-gay or a liberal on this issue at all.

Post: #83

(12-20-2013 05:24 PM)MrXY Wrote:  Just heard a report that a federal judge in Utah of all places has held that the state's ban on gay marriage, passed by 66% of the voters, is unconstitutional. The absurd proposition that the U.S. Constitution requires gay marriage shows just how much success the cultural marxists are having. They have taken over the elite positions in society and are ramming their agenda down the throats of the populace with increasing arrogance and vitriol.

In the early years of the gay rights movement, their argument to the public was that they just wanted to be left alone and tolerated. But that was never the true agenda. The plan was always to attack the institution of marriage and the normality of heterosexuality, and to force people to approve of and "celebrate" homosexuality. Now, just as with the other tentacles of of cultural marxism-feminism and racial identity politics- not just open disagreement with the party line, but the least disapproval or and even a failure to be sufficiently enthusiastic about every point of the agenda makes one suspect and a target for retaliation.

My impression from the many accounts I've read are that people who are beholden to large institutions; such employees in large corporations, the government ,or students, are now living in fear and carefully censor their speech and interactions to avoid getting on the radar of management as being someone who might have dissenting views.

The judge who struck down the law:

Quote:On November 30, 2011, President Obama nominated Robert J. Shelby to be District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Shelby


This is exactly why politics do matter -- and proof that the political parties are quite different.

Post: #84

So, if Ammendement 14 guaranteeing due process can be used to legalise gay marriage, then can't it be used to show that the Universities discarding due process when deciding the outcome of rape accusations are illegal?

Post: #85

This is getting out of hand, on ABC news they referred to the new Uganda anti gay laws

as 'the worst laws in the world'. Yes they are incredibly harsh, but "worst laws in the world" thats an outrageous statement...and interesting that it inherently trumps any laws that supress women by that same statement.

Post: #86

Free Market.

Company doesn't want negative image, sponsors don't want negative image. Fires employee for unpopular expression of opinion. Doesn't lose sponsors. Doesn't lose money.

Post: #87

(12-20-2013 08:50 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Free Market.

Company doesn't want negative image, sponsors don't want negative image. Fires employee for unpopular expression of opinion. Doesn't lose sponsors. Doesn't lose money.

You may want to check your facts. I have seen interviews of sponsors today saying that they back Robertson and, if anything, would walk away from A&E and follow Robertson to a new network. The Robertson family has already indicated that they may do exactly that.

You are right about the free market. But the market is controlled by the Robertsons, not A&E.

Post: #88

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19...lp00000009

I get how some want to split hairs on his comments regarding homosexuality, but here the man illustrates how truly ignorant he is.

Post: #89

(12-20-2013 10:51 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I get how some want to split hairs on his comments regarding homosexuality, but here the man illustrates how truly ignorant he is.

No one is splitting hairs. What he said about homosexuality is 100% correct.

Quote:Robertson said homosexuality is "not logical, my man."

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus," he said. "That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?"

Post: #90

There's nothing ignorant about his comments regarding black people. The black family unit has been destroyed since the Great Society experiment. You didn't have absent fathers and the high incarceration rates, drugs, and all the problems that go along with that back then.

I have a feeling the liberal scum have finally taken a bigger bite than they can chew and this is going to backfire big time.

Post: #91

(12-20-2013 11:31 PM)DWF Wrote:  There's nothing ignorant about his comments regarding black people. The black family unit has been destroyed since the Great Society experiment. You didn't have absent fathers and the high incarceration rates, drugs, and all the problems that go along with that back then.

I have a feeling the liberal scum have finally taken a bigger bite than they can chew and this is going to backfire big time.

lmao. bring back Jim Crow to save the black family? is this really what youre trying to say?

Post: #92

(12-21-2013 02:47 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 11:31 PM)DWF Wrote:  There's nothing ignorant about his comments regarding black people. The black family unit has been destroyed since the Great Society experiment. You didn't have absent fathers and the high incarceration rates, drugs, and all the problems that go along with that back then.

I have a feeling the liberal scum have finally taken a bigger bite than they can chew and this is going to backfire big time.

lmao. bring back Jim Crow to save the black family? is this really what youre trying to say?

What he is saying is that a trade-off occurred. African-Americans gained their long-overdue equality, but at quite a cost to their community.

There is no question that the black family unit was heavily devastated by the "war-on-poverty" social welfare experiment. That is not even debatable.

Whenever the government declares a war-on-anything it typically ends in failure -- and in this case, much human misery.

Post: #93

With regards to the Founders, they did envision slavery was a major hypocrisy with regards to the new government. Jefferson believed somewhere down the line the slaves should be freed. He never gave up his though....The founders knew they were hypocrites and foresaw a problem though. At least from what I remember in school. With regards to marriage, I don't think they even envisioned the guvment would get involved at all.

Post: #94

The reality is, everyone deserves equality under the law.

While I'll agree, the "liberal redressing" has gotten really insufferable, but it looks ignorant to deny any particular group the same rights as the next group.

I think it's well known that white males still have a privilege in America.

Post: #95

(12-21-2013 03:16 AM)la_mode Wrote:  The reality is, everyone deserves equality under the law.

While I'll agree, the "liberal redressing" has gotten really insufferable, but it looks ignorant to deny any particular group the same rights as the next group.

I think it's well known that white males still have a privilege in America.

Is it though? Could I start a White Scientists Honors Society at my former college, or a Straight Pride Club, or Pro-Masculinist Society without being branded a social pariah?

Post: #96

How is the non-profit GLAAD able to spend its funds paying to get people fired and threatening their advertisers? Isn't this a violation of their non-profit charter?

I notice both, "GLAAD spoke with A&E representatives on Wednesday morning." and "The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson." (source)

These doesn't seem like valid activities for a non-profit that receives charitable donations, and in fact should invalidate its non-profit charter.

GLAAD received 6 million in donations and grants in 2011 alone.
http://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files...902010.pdf

Post: #97

(12-21-2013 01:30 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  How is the non-profit GLAAD able to spend its funds paying to get people fired and threatening their advertisers? Isn't this a violation of their non-profit charter?

I notice both, "GLAAD spoke with A&E representatives on Wednesday morning." and "The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson." (source)

These doesn't seem like valid activities for a non-profit that receives charitable donations, and in fact should invalidate its non-profit charter.

GLAAD received 6 million in donations and grants in 2011 alone.
http://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files...902010.pdf

why would it be, this is exactly what these groups do, from glaad to peta to ultra right wing family groups and on and on.

Post: #98

(12-20-2013 10:51 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I get how some want to split hairs on his comments regarding homosexuality, but here the man illustrates how truly ignorant he is.

If we're going to socially-shame every ignorant person for their lack of perception about the world they live in, then let's start with every single twenty-something woman I meet.

Post: #99

(12-21-2013 02:11 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 10:51 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I get how some want to split hairs on his comments regarding homosexuality, but here the man illustrates how truly ignorant he is.

If we're going to socially-shame every ignorant person for their lack of perception about the world they live in, then let's start with every single twenty-something woman I meet.

well the thread is about Phil and his comments ... if you can't bring up his comments in a thread discussing his comments then where?

Post: #100

(12-20-2013 06:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 05:35 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  This is a true outrage -- imposing gay "marriage" by judicial fiat on the population of a state whose vast majority is opposed to it.

Not one of the framers of the Constitution would even have been able to comprehend the idea of "gay marriage" -- hell, most people 20 years ago would be unable to comprehend it. Yet now it is supposed to be "unconstitutional" to ban it?

These Year Zero antics are going too far.

The main problem with this Constitutional arguments is that founding fathers wouldn't have comprehended that there'd be a black president either. We had to come back generations later and make slavery and segregation illegal.

I don't see any problem with that constitutional argument. The Constitution was duly amended after the end of the Civil War to include Amendments XIV, XV, and XVI, exactly as Section 5 contemplates. The Constitution worked as designed on these questions.

There is, however, a very big problem with allowing the justices to amend the Constitution whenever they feel like it by a simple majority vote among themselves, based on their own personal policy preferences that were never enacted into law or included in the Constitution. The problem is that it is undemocratic and has no limiting principle. Literally anything the judges say will be considered law, without any constraint. Such a system is antithetical to constitutionalism and the rule of law. Indeed, there is no point in writing anything down in a constitution (or even a statute) if the justices have infinite discretion to ignore it and enact their own preferences on a whim.

If the proponents of a given cause (be it gay marriage or anything else) want the U.S. Constitution behind them, they should be required to pay the same political price that was paid by (1) the abolitionists, (2) the proponents and opponents of Prohibition (successively), (3) supporters of universal suffrage, (4) supporters of the federal income tax, (5) supporters of the original Bill of Rights, and (6) everybody else who found it necessary to amend the Constitution to change its meaning.

It is undemocratic, unfair, and inconsistent with the rule of law for the justices to require the Section 5 amendment process to be duly completed for some causes but to exempt other causes they personally favor from the Section 5 amendment process by declaring new rights not recognized in any constitutional convention or amendment.