patrick.net

leoj707 says

Well, that and they are afraid that they might catch the Gay if same sex marriages are legal.

lol .. funny

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

I am having a hard time following you as you make no sense at all. Honest Abe says

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise. OTOH, the tyranny of the majority against the gays, which John Adams warned us about comes into play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

"The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process."

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly. So stop acting like a victim when in fact you are the perpetrator of such tyrannical laws restricting my rights because it makes you feel better about yourself. Jeesh. Grow up.

Buster says

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise.

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???
You must have forgotten about The P.C. Police ... a lib brain child... giving unlimited power and unrestrained action to all who worship at the Baal temple known as progressive leftist liberalism. Carte Blanche attacks on America's soul, fiber, and Christian foundation.

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation, and those under their bully thumb, that is tied to a left hand holding a bundle of cash.

gay ... why does this term not cover all sexual deviant behavior? GLBT makes no sense. They are all sexual deviants, and this nation has been made to call sexual deviants "gay". Ok, so we do that. But now, those who perform the acts that qualify for "gay behavior" are still wanting more exacting classification?? How long will it be until we must have a different gay title for the most favorite act of each of the members of each sub-sect of the Sexual Deviant Nation. Maybe, juuuust maybe, the power trip that the progressive liberal mind enjoys from controlling the actions and speech of others is at work here?? If not, why is there any other title for sexual deviants than plain 'ol "gay"?

I also notice each speicalized sub-sect gets some cool Latin or medical sounding name ... except the plain 'ol dudes that pork/get porked by dudes. They have to live with just being called "gay". That is not fair. That is why I call them by their original, and much more correct name, sodomites. Makes sense.

Bap33 says

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???

The same militant action the christianists are taking against the pro gay companies such as: JC Penney, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Google, Yahoo, Micosoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, General Mills, Macy's, Levi's, Home Depot, Viacom, Disney, Coke, DC Commics, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, HBO, etc. http://www.policymic.com/articles/12108/apple-amazon-and-google-the-11-most-pro-gay-companies-setting-a-progressive-agenda

The christianist right is boycotting all of these and more. You have every right to do so. No one is stopping you. But as you can see, you basically have to stay home in order not to patronize a place of business that shares your bigoted views.

Your claims of victimhood are becoming louder and louder in direct proportion to your marginalization by sane people and companies who understand that hate and bigotry is not good for the bottom line. Sure, CFA may profit from their bigotry and good for them I guess. The other fortune 500 not so much. Hate and bigotry is once again being put in the corner where it belongs.

Grow up, grow some balls and quite being such a adolescent victim. You certainly have showed the world that you can dish it out. So quit crying that you now can't take the backlash.

Bap33 says

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation

No, wrong again. Proposition 8 was sponsored by "ProtectMarriage", a christianist hate group.

lol ... you are so full of hate you can't answer a simple question? lol

lets recap, shall we?

you said: Buster says

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise.

I said: Bap33 says

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???

and now, it's your turn to answer my question.

by the way, if you equate a company exec giving some money to a squeeky wheel as "support" ... ok, go with that. I mean, geeze, it cant be that they just cut a check to get the freaks out of their face and to avoid trouble .. can it? Or, is it more like a Sexual Deviant Mob demanding protection money? Since someone keeps a list of those who do not need to fear being attacked by the Militant Sexual Deviants, there must be something going on. Right?

Buster says

Bap33 says

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation

No, wrong again. Proposition 8 was sponsored by "ProtectMarriage", a christianist hate group.

Prop 8 ... ok, will you PLEASE tell us WHY it had to be brought back after Prop 22 had been passed?? That is correct, an activist court was pandered to, or threatened to be cut off from cash flow, by the Militant Sexual Deviant Army -- and that court over-turned the voice of the voters. So, Prop 8 was made to come about by the actions of the Militant Sexual Deviant Army, not just pulled from the ass of a religious group.

The deviants spent 30% more money than the non-Sodomite group in thier loss. Hurt much?

Prop 187 (1994) went to the trash heap by an activist court too. And that one cost us everything.

Bap33 says

Prop 8 ... ok, will you PLEASE tell us WHY it had to be brought back after Prop 22 had been passed??

Yes, that is easy. Because it was unconstitutional to make a law that restricted rights to only a minority of its citizens for no discernible advancement of any governmental good.

Bap,
Are you a voter in California? Just asking.

Yes I am.

Buster says

advancement of any governmental good

normal people want normal rules of conduct to have a normal life and a normal country where they can expect normal to be normal -- and "govenmental good" is not only totally subjective, it is NOT wanted by people who enjoy freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
FYI, there are roughly 30,000 laws that restrict a particular sect of the American population - aimed at them exclusively - so, maybe you had another point? Like, maybe you think those who suffer from the mental disorder, or the birth defect, that results in deviant sexual behavior, deserve special treatment?

Randy H says

This is one I agree with in principle, though I don't actually favor breaking up the country. I'd rather see us equalize the tax disproportion as well as the electoral college skewing. Your vote for President in CA equals only about 1/8 that of someone in Wyoming, which is something abjectly against the intent of the US Constitution. It's only allowed because everyone knows that setting all votes strictly equal by proportion would make it so CA + NY decide every election.

Too bad. If that's where the people are, then that's where the votes are.

Reticulating Splines

I live in NY, but I'm not so sure about this. We can't completely disenfranchise the rest of the nation. What would produce fair outcomes would be removing the winner take all system so that elector designation would be based on percentage of the vote in each state. The reason for this is that certain areas of the country have specialized economies, the mining regions and the farm regions, etc, that are not bound by a single state's borders but are extremely important to the nation. Someone from NY or CA might not understand the needs of the people of KY or IA, so they have to retain some level of automony and influence in our national government, without giving them disproportionate control.

If Cal was not winner take all, the D's might be in deep shit. The central valley, where I reside, votes conservative, from Bakersfield to Galt.

Bap33 says

Yes I am.

That's good.

Because too many non-California voters have too much to say about Prop-8. It's a state issue and it's not anyone else's business.

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly.

Marriage is NOT a civil or human right !

thomaswong.1986 says

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly.

Marriage is NOT a civil or human right !

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you has repeatedly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. Many lower courts have come to the same conclusion:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions. In November 2008, however, California voters narrowly approved a proposition designed to overturn the decision of that state's supreme court. The legality of the voters' action is now an issue in the California courts. Meanwhile, many states have, by legislation or voter initiative, enacted "defense of marriage" laws to keep marriage an institution exclusively for a man and a woman.

Bap33 says

FYI, there are roughly 30,000 laws that restrict a particular sect of the American population - aimed at them exclusively - so, maybe you had another point? Like, maybe you think those who suffer from the mental disorder, or the birth defect, that results in deviant sexual behavior, deserve special treatment?

Name ONE that does not advance a legitimate state interest in doing so.

a high school kid gets a girl pregnant ? did the girl say , yes, I will marry you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redhail

In 1972, Roger Redhail, then in high school, was sued in a paternity action in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. He admitted he was the father, and the court ordered him to pay child support in the amount of $109 per month until the child reached eighteen years of age, plus court costs. Since Redhail was in high school at the time, he had no way to pay the court costs or child support. It went in arrears, reaching a total of $3,732 by the end of 1974. Meanwhile, Redhail's noncustodial child was a public charge, and received $109 per month as support from the State of Wisconsin.

In 1974, Redhail attempted to obtain a marriage license in Milwaukee County. Due to the aforementioned § 245.10(1), one of the agents of the county clerk denied his application because he did not have a court order allowing him to marry.

Redhail proceeded to file a class action suit against Thomas Zablocki, who was the county clerk of Milwaukee County (and whose official capacity was to issue such licenses) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and since the action sought a permanent injunction against the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2281 required a three-judge court.

Welp, I guess you need to first define what you mean by "legitimate state interest". In the intrest of fair play, I'll agree upfront, ahead of time, right now, to whatever you define "legitimate state interest" to be. Please define it. Make it at an 8th grade level, please.

I have always been saying that heterosexual divorces are infinitely more harmful than homosexual marriages.

(Anything harmful is infinitely more harmful than something that is not harmful.)

very true

how many divorces are from one or the other "turning gay"? lol

and, nobody has any data on gay coupling longevity. I bet their swap-out rate is higher than black dudes and white chicks, as shared above.

Bap33 says

how many divorces are from one or the other "turning gay"? lol

And how many divorces are from one or the other who tried to 'pray away the gay' and failed? Just take a look at all the anti gay christianist preachers and activists who have been outed. I can only imagine how many this situation applies to, maybe even to yourself.

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne

Bap33 says

how many divorces are from one or the other "turning gay"

I've know a few.

Known disproportionately to the population, lots more between straights.

I suppose it's difficult to have the statistics on gay divorces since same sex marriage is such a new thing.

But how sad and tragic that many gay people marry the opposite sex because of ignoring and suppressing their own god given sexual orientation due to social or religious pressure to do so! This only screws up the other spouse and any children of the marriage. Why encourage this?

Buster says

But how sad and tragic that many gay people marry the opposite sex because of ignoring and suppressing their own god given sexual orientation due to social or religious pressure to do so! This only screws up the other spouse and any children of the marriage. Why encourage this?

Very true indeed. Many a time following one's passion will lead to a better world for all!

This isn't a gay rights issue, its an issue of oppressive, bellegerent political tyranny.

Honest Abe says

This isn't a gay rights issue, its an issue of oppressive, bellegerent political tyranny.

Your correct, this isn't about the gays. It is about tyrannical christianist majority imposing their religious faith in a secular society. Look, I could care less what you feel about gay people, as it is your right to feel and speak whatever you wish. Just quit trampling on my rights simply because they conflict with your ancient belief system.

Bap33 says

Welp, I guess you need to first define what you mean by "legitimate state interest". In the intrest of fair play, I'll agree upfront, ahead of time, right now, to whatever you define "legitimate state interest" to be. Please define it. Make it at an 8th grade level, please.

hmmm .. dang, I was all horny for a beat down.

Honest Abe says

This isn't a gay rights issue, its an issue of oppressive, bellegerent political tyranny.

True. This is why I also stand with Chick-Fil-A.

Is anyone suprized that mass media has kissing queers "protesting" CFA all over the news cast, but didn't carry Becks party in Texas, nor the CFA support day? no? me either.

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

Welp, I guess you need to first define what you mean by "legitimate state interest". In the intrest of fair play, I'll agree upfront, ahead of time, right now, to whatever you define "legitimate state interest" to be. Please define it. Make it at an 8th grade level, please.

hmmm .. dang, I was all horny for a beat down.

State interest: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy.

State legislatures pass laws to address matters of public interest and concern. A law that sets speed limits on public highways expresses an interest in protecting public safety. A statute that requires high school students to pass competency examinations before being allowed to graduate advances the state's interest in having an educated citizenry.

Although the state may have a legitimate interest in public safety, public health, or an array of other issues, a law that advances a state interest may also intrude on important constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has devised standards of review that govern how a state interest will be constitutionally evaluated.

When a law affects a constitutionally protected interest, the law must meet the Rational Basis Test. This test requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. For example, a state law that prohibits a person from selling insurance without a license deprives people of their right to make contracts freely. Yet the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protecting persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents. Most laws that are challenged on this basis are upheld, as there is usually some type of reasonable relation between the state interest and the way the law seeks to advance that interest.

When a law or policy affects a fundamental constitutional right, such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, the Strict Scrutiny test will be applied. This test requires the state to advance a compelling state interest to justify the law or policy. Strict scrutiny places a heavy burden on the state. For example, in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was not compelling enough to overcome a woman's right to privacy. When the state interest is not sufficiently compelling, the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

Unfortunately for the homophobes, anti civil equality laws written exclusively for the gays, don't even pass the easy to achieve Rational Basis Test.

I suggest that Bap 33, Thomas Wong, Honest Abe and others here really listen to a leading CONSERVATIVE lawyer, Ted Olson, (who is responsible for getting Bush II in office) speak on FOX NEWS, regarding the right to marriage, and the unconstitutionality of anti gay marriage laws. I can't say it any better or more plainly than Mr. Olson does in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0OE-gNhcl6A&feature=related

dude (or miss) you just copy/pasted some crap. You define what it is, in your own words, on an 8th grade level, or quit - give up - and accept the loss sooner vs later. I have an excellant post all prepaired, once you define "legitimate state interest".
8th grade level, please.

Buster says

a leading CONSERVATIVE lawyer,

lol .. says who?

Another interview on the CONSERVATIVE case for gay marriage. Mr. Olson is considered by literally all, except for you, to be a leading conservative lawyer, who defended Reagan and Bush, a founding member of the Federalist Society as well as being the appointed Solicitor General appointed by Bush II, and board of directors of Spectator Magazine. To claim Theodore Olson is NOT a CONSERVATIVE is laughable and shows your complete lack of ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/DWp79jvy9aA&feature=related

Bap33 says

dude (or miss) you just copy/pasted some crap. You define what it is, in your own words, on an 8th grade level, or quit - give up - and accept the loss sooner vs later. I have an excellant post all prepaired, once you define "legitimate state interest".

8th grade level, please.

Ok, here it is on a 3rd grade level: The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.