damned if you do, damned if you don't... (about prop 8)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps you are easily fooled.

No.

[_rcrocket]

You coulda fooled me.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps you are easily fooled. Really, you evince such little knowledge of the doctrine of equal protection. That doctrine does not hold that every citizen is entitled to the rights of every other citizen.

That's exactly what it means, unless the gov't can demonstrate a damn good reason for the discrimination (based on sliding scale depending on whether the discrimation involves a fundamental right, etc.).

There are hundreds of thousands of examples around the country, in the states and federal court system, in which differentiation is made. Where a suspect class is not involved, that differentiation can be made rather easily.

Exactly, but not all persons and situations are equal. And the CA supreme court found gays to be a suspect class.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Bill Clinton signed, denies to homosexual couples the right of marriage benefits.

And I do not expect the federal DOMA to survive constitutional muster by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As I have previously told you, the DOMA was upheld in an equal protection argument in an Orange County federal court; vacated but upheld by the 9th Circuit.

BS. That case was vacated "on the merits." It means nothing to this analysis.

Keep trying, counselor ....

[_rcrocket]

Speaking of suspect, your knowledge of the equal protection doctrine is quite so. That you don't acknowledge its role in all the cases I have cited indicates that whomever is feeding you your information doesn't want to look them up.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Speaking of suspect, your knowledge of the equal protection doctrine is quite so. That you don't acknowledge its role in all the cases I have cited indicates that whomever is feeding you your information doesn't want to look them up.

I'll look them up. I recall the last case you cited that I looked up (the fed case dealing with DOMA) and it turned out the 9th Cir. vacated the ruling on the merits. In other words, completely worthless.

[_rcrocket]

Speaking of suspect, your knowledge of the equal protection doctrine is quite so. That you don't acknowledge its role in all the cases I have cited indicates that whomever is feeding you your information doesn't want to look them up.

I'll look them up. I recall the last case you cited that I looked up (the fed case dealing with DOMA) and it turned out the 9th Cir. vacated the ruling on the merits. In other words, completely worthless.

Umm -- I told you in advance the case was vacated. Just because a case is vacated doesn't mean the reasoning is not compelling.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I recall the last case you cited that I looked up (the fed case dealing with DOMA) and it turned out the 9th Cir. vacated the ruling on the merits. In other words, completely worthless.

Umm -- I told you in advance the case was vacated. Just because a case is vacated doesn't mean the reasoning is not compelling.

But you failed to mention it was actually ordered vacated "on the merits." That wiped out the reasoning, counselor.

[_GoodK]

I reported no one to the state Bar.

Yet you continue to castrate me for reporting you to your dad for saying mean things about your sister and your dad, which I did not do? What's the difference?

First of all, I didn't say anything mean about my sister, and you and everyone else knows that. Nice try, little guy.

Second of all, you're a wiener for trying to get me in trouble with my step-dad. The only reason you didn't is because DCP had your email address on his ignore list and he beat you to it. This is all common knowledge.

Is that all,
Robert Crocket ?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... DCP had your email address on his ignore list and he beat you to it.

DCP put Crock on the "ignore list"?! Wow, that's cold.