CA Supreme Court agrees to review Prop. 8 ....

[_Calculus Crusader]

Just because you have convinced yourself, does not mean you have convinced, or will convince, us.

There's no convincing dimbulbs of right reason, I've found.

By the way, are you the product of Wasatch Front inbreeding? It would explain a lot if you were.

[_Trevor]

There's no convincing dimbulbs of right reason, I've found.

When you present right reason, we can put your observation to the test. Until then...

By the way, are you the product of Wasatch Front inbreeding? It would explain a lot if you were.

No, but I am the product of pure Mormon pioneer breeding. Does that help? Are you a Mormon-hater?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) declared an income tax a violation of civil rights and unconstitutional. It was overruled by the 16th amendment.

Actually, Pollock held the income tax unconstitutional because it was a "direct tax" (i.e., tax on income from property like real estate, rents, etc.), which the Constitution required to be apportioned among the states -- Congress could always apply an "indirect tax" to income (i.e., income from salary, etc.). The only thing the 16th Amendment did was get rid of the apportionment rule for "direct income tax." Hardly a fundamental right.

There just isn't any legal precedent for that in any court decision, and constitutional amendments are passed frequently to limit somebody's rights.

Not fundamental rights, ... well, until Prop. 8.

Re-institution of the death penalty in California is a good example.

No it's not. It was reinstituted after it was fixed to pass constitutional muster.

California just passed Proposition 2 that required farmers to vastly expand the size of the pens required to hold chickens and pigs, so that they can roam around rather than be penned into one place. Animals don't have civil rights, but the farmers cannot likely compete with Arizona and Baja farmers. Seems the farmer's civil rights have been trammeled upon.

How is that a fundamental constitutional right, counselor?

Also, I hold my sides in laughter and your continued name-calling; mocking and making fun of my profession and calling me a bigot just because I supported Prop 8.

You are. There is no other way to describe you when it comes to Prop. 8.

I support Prop 8 because I oppose gay marriage for the reasons articulated in the Witherspoon report and not because I was compelled to do so.

What reasons? As was pointed out in a post above, that report is a joke ... and the fact you hang your hat on that absurd report reveals your homophobia.

Prop 8 passed with a significant margin (notwithstanding the press calling it "narrow or slim").

Which only shows we have a long way to go in this country to overcome bigotry, but it'll come.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't expect to convince any Mormon-hater here (therein lies the true bigotry, doesn't it? hating, mocking, and name-calling somebody because of his faith in Jesus Christ and His Prophet? otherwise, why spend your time and energy on a website such as this?), least of all you or Rollo.

I'm no Mormon-hater, but I don't suffer bigots like yourself.

There are others, though, I expect to convince, and invite them to read the Witherspoon report at http://www.princetonprinciples.org/, particularly page 27 and perhaps counter with sociological reports of their own.

That report (particularly p. 27) is a joke.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But it is pretty clear that up till 1916 when the 16th amendment was added there was NO income tax. There were other taxes but not income.

Not true. Congress could always apply an indirect income tax (the Pollock case held that a direct income tax on property was unconstitutional because it wasn't apportioned among the states, and the 16th Amendment took care of that).

For 140 years the USA operated without such. And if you think I am wrong that an income tax was unconstitutional then why pray tell did it take an amendment to the constitution to make it legal?

To take care of the Pollock problem.

[_Brackite]

Hypothetically, if the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8, is it conceivable that LDS Church would spearhead a drive to help Southern California secede from wicked Northern California?


.

LOL! That is right. Proposition 8 Won in nine out of the ten Southern California Counties.


Please Check Out and See:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/ma ... 000008.htm




Look how much Proposition 8 Won, Within the Great Southern California County of Imperial:

YES: --- 20,217 --- 70.1%
NO: ---- 8,644 --- 29.9%


And Look how much Proposition 8 lost, within the Liberal Northern California County of Marin:

YES: --- 34,178 --- 24.9%
NO: --- 103,001 --- 75.1%

Look how much Proposition 8 Won, Within the Conservative Southern California County of Kern:

YES: --- 175,167 --- 75.3%
NO: ---- 57,496 --- 24.7%



And Look how much Proposition 8 lost, within the Popular Northern California County of San Francisco:

YES: --- 90,657 --- 24.9%
NO: --- 272,960 --- 75.1%


in my opinion, The Best way to solve this Problem is to split California into two States. The State of California is already the most Popular State within the Union, with a Population of over 36,000,00 People. Split California into the State of North California, and into the State of South California. The State of North California can be legally allowed to recognize Same Sex Marriages. The State of South California will have Proposition 8 within its Constitution, and only Marriage between one man and one woman will be legally allowed and/or legally recognized within the State of South California.


Proposition 8 also even still managed to Win barely, Within the Popular Southern California County of Los Angeles:

Yes: --- 1,594,038 --- 50.1%
No: ---- 1,591,134 --- 49.9%

[_rcrocket]

I don't expect to convince any Mormon-hater here (therein lies the true bigotry, doesn't it? hating, mocking, and name-calling somebody because of his faith in Jesus Christ and His Prophet? otherwise, why spend your time and energy on a website such as this?), least of all you or Rollo.

I'm no Mormon-hater, but I don't suffer bigots like yourself.

There are others, though, I expect to convince, and invite them to read the Witherspoon report at http://www.princetonprinciples.org/, particularly page 27 and perhaps counter with sociological reports of their own.

That report (particularly p. 27) is a joke.

Whether one is a Mormon-hater or not is in the eye of the beholder. Let's say instead that you post hateful things about Mormons and the Brethren, or so it appears. If one appears in his true name and he discloses an ecclesiastical position (why would one do that is beyond me, but I stand condemned as well) you mock it rather than respect it.

As far as the Witherspoon report is concerned, its signatories are some pretty impressive folk. And, the appeal to natural law theory is rather well done, it seems. No doubt, sociological data for same-sex marriage is thin. I would be interested in seeing contra authority, and hopefully not from the queer studies corner.

But, being on the front line here in the same-sex marriage controversy, I can speak from experience to say that the gays are no friends of the Mormons and so it continues every week in little ways as minor financial contributors to Prop 8 are ousted from their jobs. Bravo to those Mormon haters, Nadine Hansen in particular, who have contributed to the misery.

[_Trevor]

As far as the Witherspoon report is concerned, its signatories are some pretty impressive folk.

Appeal to authority.

And, the appeal to natural law theory is rather well done, it seems.

Seems? And this is what you hang the value of the report on.

No doubt, sociological data for same-sex marriage is thin.

Indeed. But I guess that doesn't stop Prop 8 supporters from concluding it must be stopped.

I would be interested in seeing contra authority, and hopefully not from the queer studies corner.

Should I have hoped that Witherspoon Report had come from a group that is not run by cultural conservatives? Or is that unreasonable?

[_rcrocket]

Appeal to authority.

What does that mean? Oh, right, more meaningless jargon as you are wont to do.

Really, now, sociological reports buttressed by statistical studies are an appropriate basis upon which to discuss the efficacy of same-sex marriage. I hardly think Rollo's continued name-calling ("you bigot") is more logical. I hardly think that your simple disposal of the report by branding them "cultural conservatives" is adequate to persuade anybody except for people who are already Mormon-haters. (I have looked at the resumes of some of the signatories and don't see them as anything other than peers in their field.)

[_Trevor]

What does that mean? Oh, right, more meaningless jargon as you are wont to do.

Come on, Bob. That's pretty lame. I think you understand the concept of appealing to authorities as the basis for making an argument ('well, professor so and so said it, so it must be true'). That is hardly meaningless jargon. It describes perfectly what you did when you made that statement about the impressive people. Lame.

Really, now, sociological reports buttressed by statistical studies are an appropriate basis upon which to discuss the efficacy of same-sex marriage.

And the precise point that the Witherspoon Report makes is that the research is insufficiently developed to conclude that gay parenting has a positive or negative impact on children. The attempt to link gay marriage to declining populations in Europe was also a huge stretch, and one the authors were hardly even committed to. You brought forward this report as your reason for supporting Prop 8. The fact that the report is weak is not my problem. It simply is the case that a persuasive scientific argument against gay marriage cannot be made. The people who wrote the report know that. Lame.