|
|
| Author |
Message |
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
wellspoken
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 7137
|
 Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:23 Post subject: Re: Sign the online petition
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: | | http://www.millionformarriage.org |
get a better hobby.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
AND HELL NO!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
You Texas redneck f***s better get used to this.
Tis the future, my cross burning friends!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Renork
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 6282
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
win!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | You Texas redneck f***s better get used to this.
Tis the future, my cross burning friends! |
Ahhhh...the future of subversion. You can't abide by the laws, don't want to go to Congress to change them, so you try to redefine key words to make it all legal. Yeah, nice try ass bag, but it won't happen unless you go through Congress first. And we all know that will fail...look how easy DOMA passed.
Get a clue, you have no conception of how government works.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
What would you call the civil rights movements of the 60's then, Clansmen...er Doc?
You think they waited around for all you good ole boys to put the sheets away?
You're a homophobe hiding behind "laws". Nice try.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | What would you call the civil rights movements of the 60's then, Clansmen...er Doc?
You think they waited around for all you good ole boys to put the sheets away?
You're a homophobe hiding behind "laws". Nice try. |
I agree with the Civil Rights movement, it did a lot of good things for this country.
I find it laughable that you call me a "Clansman"...you don't even know me.
As far as hiding behind laws...like I said before, you have no conception on how the government works. Maybe you should have studied harder in school when you had the chance.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Dalai Lama of RealPoor
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 16395
Location: 375th st. Y
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
lol give it time doc. things will change.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| atarom wrote: | | lol give it time doc. things will change. |
If they go through Congress and it gets passed, good for them...like I've said before, I'll have no problems with any decision voted on and passed by Congress.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
I've read your brainless posts for years, doc.
I think I know the basis for who you are.
I also recall you putting up quite a stink about 4 years ago when the KKK adopted a highway in Texas, then had it revoked.
so yes, I think you're a clansmen coupled with your homophobia. See, I don't think the two are very different.
You being behind the times, I don't expect you to draw the similarities.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
Rosa Parks didn't sit at the back of the bus.
Gay folks aren't waiting around for you dark ages mofos to wake up and realize what human equality is all about.
They aren't sitting at the back of the bus anymore, so to speak. And I'm happy a town in NY has also made it legal as of this morning.
And if you're using the anarchy defense, I now also think you may be suffering from paranoia.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | I've read your brainless posts for years, doc.
I think I know the basis for who you are.
I also recall you putting up quite a stink about 4 years ago when the KKK adopted a highway in Texas, then had it revoked.
so yes, I think you're a clansmen coupled with your homophobia. See, I don't think the two are very different.
You being behind the times, I don't expect you to draw the similarities. |
HAHA...I don't like the KKK or Skinheads or any other "hate" group...but thanks for trying.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
b******t doc.
I know other people can remember this too. It was on VN boards. Went nearly 200 posts and guess who was the biggest b*****r of it being revoked?
Pretty sure Faedral and I were the only ones really supporting it, seeing as we had an even BIGGER conglomeration of rednecks on the boards back then.
Don't p***y out now. Stand up for what you believe in!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Maybe if it were a "freedom of speech" type issue...where it was okay for "Black Panthers" to police a section of Interstate and have a sign to that effect...but it wasn't okay for the "KKK" to have one...then yes, it would be a hypocratic issue and I would have stood up for them. But all in all, I don't like what the KKK or any other "hate" group stands for.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
But from now on, I'll be more specific and use 'bigot'.
How's that? Look up the def. Might see your pic.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 18:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Nope sorry...I consider myself a Federalist...not a bigot. And I oppose Liberal/Commies...not race or religion. (Unless it's diametrically opposed to maintaining our nation's security.)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
wellspoken
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 7137
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 19:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | But from now on, I'll be more specific and use 'bigot'.
How's that? Look up the def. Might see your pic. |
Shut the f**k up.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Much of the civil rights movement was criminal and wrong. Malcom X, the black panthers, etc were all just as wrong as the lawless mayors of today. The groups that brought the most constructive attention to the issues followed Martin Luther King. He didn't condone subverting the law. he encouraged the opposite.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
Pheonix,
You hate f**s tho.
So which is it? You hide behind the "anarchy" thing or you're a bigot.
p**s or get off the pot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | Pheonix,
You hate f**s tho.
So which is it? You hide behind the "anarchy" thing or you're a bigot.
p**s or get off the pot. |
Isn't "f*g" the type of word a bigot would use?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, it's the exact word I heard you use several times yesterday.
And in fact, more than likely tonight in Hollywood, I will call one of my friends a f*g too.
The dif is that you're a piece of shit. See?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Megalo wrote: | Yes, it's the exact word I heard you use several times yesterday.
And in fact, more than likely tonight in Hollywood, I will call one of my friends a f*g too.
The dif is that you're a piece of shit. See? |
No. All I see is that you're calling people "readnecks", "f**s" and..................."bigots." Right...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Much of the civil rights movement was criminal and wrong. Malcom X, the black panthers, etc were all just as wrong as the lawless mayors of today. The groups that brought the most constructive attention to the issues followed Martin Luther King. He didn't condone subverting the law. he encouraged the opposite. |
That's an interesting point, that I've been thinking about while reading about the way little towns all over are starting to follow SF's example. It is breaking the law, and will almost certainly be struck down in court. It's no different in principle than Roy Moore's behavior. I don't know that I can rationaly approve of it, although it's satisfying to see it happen, at least in cases I agree with. It's similar to the civil disobediance before Blacks were granted rights.
Is a certain amount of civil disobedience necessary to set the stage for legal changes? Would they take place without it? Or is it a way of testing the water, seeing if a meme can propagate well enough to catch fire in people's imaginations? Maybe it sputters out, or maybe it's a way of communicating across a population that enough is enough and it's time for change.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Much of the civil rights movement was criminal and wrong. Malcom X, the black panthers, etc were all just as wrong as the lawless mayors of today. The groups that brought the most constructive attention to the issues followed Martin Luther King. He didn't condone subverting the law. he encouraged the opposite. |
That's an interesting point, that I've been thinking about while reading about the way little towns all over are starting to follow SF's example. It is breaking the law, and will almost certainly be struck down in court. It's no different in principle than Roy Moore's behavior. I don't know that I can rationaly approve of it, although it's satisfying to see it happen, at least in cases I agree with. It's similar to the civil disobediance before Blacks were granted rights.
Is a certain amount of civil disobedience necessary to set the stage for legal changes? Would they take place without it? Or is it a way of testing the water, seeing if a meme can propagate well enough to catch fire in people's imaginations? Maybe it sputters out, or maybe it's a way of communicating across a population that enough is enough and it's time for change. |
There's a significant difference between what happened in the Roy Moore case and what is happening here. Roy Moore put up a monument. It was then challenged in court by the ACLU. The court decided, and this is the key, based on no written law whatsoever that the monument must be removed. It was an arbitrary judgement. In San Francisco, they are facing a law that specifically restricts gay marriage. In both cases the law was subverted.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, I don't want to get caught up in quibbling about relative details. Gavin Newsom went against statutory law, Roy Moore went against case law (both his own specific case, as well as many previous cases). They both cited their own interpretation of the constitution as justification. I think the similarities outweigh the differences.
And I think the motivation is the same. Not so much to win outright, but to establish a focal point for galvanising support for future changes to the law. The question is to see how much support will follow - how much people really, fundamentally care. The support that springs up in the wake will indicate which way the wind is blowing. I think I managed to mix at least four separate metaphores there 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Megalo
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 682
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh, just an FYI...
State's cannot be sued over this. That's why the cokehead is trying to get an Amendment passed.
In this example (gay marriage), federal law will NOT supersede. Thus, the Amendment.
This is perfect timing for this too. Bush is causing even more of a rift between himself and his constituents. Cause believe it or not, there is such a thing as a liberal Republican.
Wait til the Democrats bleed this issue dry. They'll have every person in America, who's ever been concerned about human rights, in a TIZZY by the time this election is over.
I lub it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 20:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
It's funny you keep bringing up Bush, when it was Clinton that signed DOMA into law...
| Quote: | | In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marraige as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. § 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same **** that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. § 1738C). |
...now get that rescinded and get an amendment through Congress, then have all the same **** marriages you want.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
