Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.

So you deny facts and obfucate. How Mormon of you.

What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.

a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

Nonsense. Inalienable rights are those that men have
nothing to do with

ROTFLMHO. Try reading what is written,not what you hoped I wrote. The
decisions on how individuals behave is determined by themselves.

2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Until Gideon v Wainwright, the due process clause never
covered legal representation in state courts either

Whir...spin....another of your fallacies of distraction. None of which
refutes anything I posted.

Over time, society reciprecated by recognizing these benefits to
society

Wrong question. It should be "Who defines what the criteria for
society to bestow benefits upon"?

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:23:48 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:


Info Junkie wrote:


On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:



On Oct 30, 9:55 am, Info Junkie <bondr... at (no spam) ifx.net> wrote:


On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:02:32 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth




In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
Equal Protection clause:
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
meet ALL of the following criteria:

The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

This link doesn't say "ALL". It says "at least one".

Thank you for pointing out my typing error Mr Rosenbluth. The correct
links may be seen at: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class directly
contradicts http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classification.
Wikipedia is no tiebreaker.


Then I suggest you look say to where:
"Note: Suspect class and suspect classification are often used
synonymously in regard to a group of persons, but suspect class does
not refer to the process of classifying itself"
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com

You gave a link to the homepage, not to the page with that quote.


Yep...now using the URL I provided, look up "suspect class" and see if
you can find it... ITM, should you spend less time "snipping" Mr
Rosenbluth, you wouldn't have missed (or intentionally ignored) where
I also posted:

"Quite franky, I'm tired of doing other people's homework while those
like yourself (leftist-liberal/progressive) remain silent toward fools
like Nicklas at (no spam) Click.com and "thomas p.". "

My comment remains unrefuted:
'Whereas suspect classification requires ALL of the criteria noted in:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classification and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification '

Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination. These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

The California case was based on the California constitution, so federal
cases which deal with the US Constitution wouldn't have any precedential
value. Also, beginning on page 96 of the opinion, the California court
discusses immutability.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Thank you for the link and page Mr Rosenbluth. Even you've admitted
that 'the court danced around the immutability issue'.

While I agree these are only California judges dealing only with the
California constitution, IMHO, they remain part of the judicial
system, and must still take an oath of office....of which MO is they
violated.

For the first time in ANY state/federal case, such an application of
strict scrutiny may trigger an appeal to the USSC (eventually)

On what basis?


(Well, barring my use of medications in recovering from pneumonia ;-)

Should the Court attempt to throw out the results of the referendum
that would change CA's constitution, or if challenged to the federal
court based on the use of strict scrutiny... we'll just have to wait
and see...

Looks like the voters have overturned the CA SC ruling.

And that vote moots your original claim.


??? The vote validates my point that the majority of California voters
overturned the Courts "misinterpretation" of the definition of
marriage as defined by the majority of society.


Still, you didn't offer a
basis (i.e., what federal statute or Constitutional provision did the CA
SC violate) had the vote gone the other way.


No I didn't....as I'll leave such "woulda, coulda, shoulda"
speculations to children, eh?

Info Junkie wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:


On Oct 30, 9:55 am, Info Junkie <bondr... at (no spam) ifx.net> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:02:32 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth



In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
Equal Protection clause:
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
meet ALL of the following criteria:

The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

This link doesn't say "ALL". It says "at least one".

Thank you for pointing out my typing error Mr Rosenbluth. The correct
links may be seen at: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class directly
contradicts http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classification.
Wikipedia is no tiebreaker.


Then I suggest you look say to where:
"Note: Suspect class and suspect classification are often used
synonymously in regard to a group of persons, but suspect class does
not refer to the process of classifying itself"
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com

You gave a link to the homepage, not to the page with that quote.

Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination. These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

The California case was based on the California constitution, so federal
cases which deal with the US Constitution wouldn't have any precedential
value. Also, beginning on page 96 of the opinion, the California court
discusses immutability.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Thank you for the link and page Mr Rosenbluth. Even you've admitted
that 'the court danced around the immutability issue'.

While I agree these are only California judges dealing only with the
California constitution, IMHO, they remain part of the judicial
system, and must still take an oath of office....of which MO is they
violated.

For the first time in ANY state/federal case, such an application of
strict scrutiny may trigger an appeal to the USSC (eventually)

On what basis?


(Well, barring my use of medications in recovering from pneumonia ;-)

Should the Court attempt to throw out the results of the referendum
that would change CA's constitution, or if challenged to the federal
court based on the use of strict scrutiny... we'll just have to wait
and see...

Looks like the voters have overturned the CA SC ruling.

And that vote moots your original claim.

Still, you didn't offer a
basis (i.e., what federal statute or Constitutional provision did the CA
SC violate) had the vote gone the other way.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:11:00 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:


snip
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm


A law does not have precedence over the Constitution.


ROTFLMHO. DOMA is a law based on the Constitution. The United States
Congress passed it and the POTUS signed it into law sonny. Cite the
USSC case that found DOMA unconstitutional, else it is a
constitutional law.

There is nothing that
requires a civil right to be beneficial to society.

Sure there is:
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/

Obviously none of the above is required for a marriage, therefore my
statement stands.


Your "statement" has no basis or meaning. The "requirement(s)" for
marriage are spelled out in 45 US States...30 of them defining
marriage in their constitution. YOU may not like it or even agree with
those requirements, stated and/or implied. Your consent/disagreement
is irrelevent regarding those facts.

Name a civilized country with a purely secular government that doesn't
have any stated and/or implied requirements for marriage, as well as
stated and/or implied benefits for society.

snip of additional attempts at obfuscation. Your dishonesty is tedious.

You post of an "honest discussion" and then "snip" the evidence that
directly refutes your false claims...evidence you have yet to refute
with anything but rhetoric, sophistry and "snippage". LOL

Hardly irrelevent, as opposed to free blacks, immigrants and slaves
had no legal standing as citizens and could not vote prior to the
ratification of Amendment XIV. Once ratified, Amendment XIII changed
the status of slaves to freemen, and Amendment XIV made these new
folks citizens of the United States.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:38:52 -0500, Info Junkie
bondrock at (no spam) ifx.net> wrote:

Hardly irrelevent, as opposed to free blacks, immigrants and slaves
had no legal standing as citizens and could not vote prior to the
ratification of Amendment XIV. Once ratified, Amendment XIII changed
the status of slaves to freemen, and Amendment XIV made these new
folks citizens of the United States.

But "popular vote" still denied them equal acess to
excercise their franchise, equal opportunity, equal
housing, treatment, and equal education.

ROTFLMHO. Let's look at what was posted..in context, shall we?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:09:30 -0500, Info Junkie
bondrock at (no spam) ifx.net> wrote:

ROTFLMHO. Let's look at what was posted..in context, shall we?


No, infospunkie---we're well aware of your advanced
trollism

So far, you've never posted anything worth looking
into.