Quote:

---

Quote:

---

an 8yr old girl is not legally old enough to decide for herself. petey pedophile is SOL.

---

First of all, who says the 8 year old isn't old enough to decide for herself? We as a culture do. Why is this different from telling a homosexual couple that there is obviously something wrong with them deciding for themselves?

Besides, it doesn't matter who the partner is. The question is, why isn't this sexual deviation a protected class like homosexuals?

---

Quote:

---

Why are gay unions being compared to polygamy, incest, animals and child molesters? While you may not agree with gay unions, you're comparing apples to oranges, strawberries, grapes and peaches. What are the legal ramifications of making gay unions ok? Is it going to make a huge impact on the world? No really. The gay community isn't trying to redefine marriage; they just want to participate in a union that gives them the same rights.

---

Quote:

---

who says the 8 year old isn't old enough to decide for herself

---

Quote:

---

Why is this different from telling a homosexual couple that there is obviously something wrong with them deciding for themselves?

---

Quote:

---

why isn't this sexual deviation a protected class like homosexuals?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

....to someone who likes say 8 year old little girls? After all, this is just a sexual orientation no different than homosexuality.

---

No, it's not.

---

Why not?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

....to someone who likes say 8 year old little girls? After all, this is just a sexual orientation no different than homosexuality.

---

No, it's not.

---

Why not?

---

You're not interested in a discussion, you're just picking a fight. Go find another bridge to lurk under.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why are gay unions being compared to polygamy, incest, animals and child molesters? While you may not agree with gay unions, you're comparing apples to oranges, strawberries, grapes and peaches. What are the legal ramifications of making gay unions ok? Is it going to make a huge impact on the world? No really. The gay community isn't trying to redefine marriage; they just want to participate in a union that gives them the same rights.

---

First off, how is homosexuality different from incest and polygamy. I'll let you off the hook on beastiality and child molestation since the question of consent can be raised on these two issues. However, in the cases of incest and polygamy, there is no way you can say it isn't apples to apples.

By what notion can you allow two men or two women to marry and tell a mother she can't marry her 18 year old son? By what notion can you allow gays to marry but not allow Bubba to marry two sisters?

The fact is our nation has spoken out. State after State has passed laws saying Marriage is between a man and a woman. State after state has voted and said homosexual marriages should not be allowed.

---

Quote:

---

So, if states had created a separate but truly equal system, that would have been ok?

---

Quote:

---

Or is that you don't have problem with judicial review when you agree with the outcome?

---

Quote:

---

Again, your issue is with how the court is applying judicial review in this context.

---

Quote:

---

You had no problem with the Court "creating" law as you put it in Brown. As you say, it was a common sense decision. But there were many who argued the Court was "creating" law then too.

---

Quote:

---

Stick to the equal protection argument. It's the right one; the judicial review is conservative chest thumping and my little tete a tete with you here is how democrats could attack it, if they had the brains to do it.

---

Quote:

---

Affording all citizens the same rights is paramount. I don't call that legislating from the bench. I call that applying the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Affording all citizens the same rights is paramount. I don't call that legislating from the bench. I call that applying the Constitution.

---

The extreme right-wing doesn't like an independent judiciary because it diminishes the dictatorial power of the executive branch. In their fascist little minds, there should be one voice that tells all what is right and wrong. The legislature would serve at the pleasure of the president and is there to give rubber-stamp approval to his policies.

---

I heard a comedian this morning and he said he didn't know what all the fuss was about the 2008 election. He said that surely Bush will just declare himself king and all further elections will cease. That cracked me up.

And evidently we need to have someone to tell us what is right or wrong because if we start thinking for ourselves the next logical step is polygamy or beastiality.

Quote:

---

I can see the talking points now:
* The "War on Terror" is at a critical juncture
* We can't afford to show any wavering or uncertainty to the enemy
* We can't change horses in mid-stream
* So, no more elections until the next "Mission Accomplished" banner goes up....

---

Quote:

---

The three blind mice can't read my posts, apparently. I trust you can do better, Straw.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, if states had created a separate but truly equal system, that would have been ok?

---

That was the court's implication, yes. "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Quote:

---

Or is that you don't have problem with judicial review when you agree with the outcome?

---

Let's not start questioning each others' integrity.

Quote:

---

Again, your issue is with how the court is applying judicial review in this context.

---

My issue is with how the court is inserting itself in the legislative process.

Quote:

---

You had no problem with the Court "creating" law as you put it in Brown. As you say, it was a common sense decision. But there were many who argued the Court was "creating" law then too.

---

I would have had a problem had law been created. I've shown my consistency.

Quote:

---

Stick to the equal protection argument. It's the right one; the judicial review is conservative chest thumping and my little tete a tete with you here is how democrats could attack it, if they had the brains to do it.

---

Thanks, dad, but I'll formulate my own argument, if that's ok.

---

Sure son if you want to be logically inconsistent, go right ahead.
Also, if you read your quote, the Court clearly states that separate is inherrently unequal. The decision left no implication that separate systems were going to pass constitutional muster.

Do you still want to form your own arguments?

Quote:

---

... if you read your quote, the Court clearly states that separate is inherrently unequal. The decision left no implication that separate systems were going to pass constitutional muster.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

... if you read your quote, the Court clearly states that separate is inherrently unequal . The decision left no implication that separate systems were going to pass constitutional muster.

---

But that was not your question. Your question was, IF there could be a separate AND equal system, would the Court have had reason to act. Their opinion implies that they would not. Now, maybe you believe that they would have, anyway, because they were judicial activists, and wanted to end segregation for its own sake. Maybe. But I prefer to take them at their word, Gramps.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The three blind mice can't read my posts, apparently. I trust you can do better, Straw.

---

I thought we weren't supposed to question integrity. Or is that only your integrity?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The three blind mice can't read my posts, apparently. I trust you can do better, Straw.

---

I thought we weren't supposed to question integrity. Or is that only your integrity?

---

in·teg·ri·ty
in-'te-gr&-tE
noun
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

You are only showing your continued struggles with reading comprehension. I didn't question your integrity. I questioned your...

abil·i·ty
&-'bi-l&-tE
noun
1 a : the quality or state of being able; especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The three blind mice can't read my posts, apparently. I trust you can do better, Straw.

---

I thought we weren't supposed to question integrity. Or is that only your integrity?

---

in·teg·ri·ty
in-'te-gr&-tE
noun
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

You are only showing your continued struggles with reading comprehension. I didn't question your integrity. I questioned your...

abil·i·ty
&-'bi-l&-tE
noun
1 a : the quality or state of being able; especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform

---

Quote:

---

Nice spin, but you know you were not questioning ability, but rather saying I was attempting to obfuscate your point by mocking Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Lying is really beneath you. I'm not saying I haven't seen you do it, just that it is beneath you.

---

Quote:

---

Ok, you are quoting that separate is inherently unequal, but the court could go along with separate but truly euqal, and now you are saying that separate but equal is impossible.

I have seen circular logic, but never triangular logic. Congrats on your accomplishment

---

Quote:

---

My original point was you agreed that Brown was dealing with a constitutional issue, but the NJ court was not and they are legislating from the bench.

I again say if your premise is they are legislating from the bench here, they were legislating from the bench in Brown. Judicial review either is legitimate or it is not.

You can argue that they are incorrect in applying constitutional protection in this case, but it is no more legislating than Brown was.

---