Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

hagan714 · 07-18-2015, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

I don't think we can do that. As far as I understand it, citizens do not vote on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. We can vote on proposed laws, but once the challenge is raised as to whether any law is unconstitutional, it is up to the courts to make a decision.

That is what the lawyers want you to believe.

Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true.

The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself. A simple nation wide petition would have forced the issue on a ballot. Much like in the last election were businesses were given the same rights as people in covering up campaign contributions. It easily could have been handle this way. Even without having to word the options as double negatives to make sure it passed.

By going the legal route it allows for more aggressive changes that really only the extremist of the movement want. IE California doing away with husband and wife terminology because it was anti gay and offensive.

Me? I am offended that if i go in and get married we are now a couple. So I am to spend the rest of life making sure anyone who inquires to the state of our marriage is hetero and not homo. This is just the start of making everyone's life more complicated than it has to be. If i lived in California. This will spread.

Why not two simple options husband and wife or couple. hell inter mix them wife and wife and husband and husband even you pick. At least equality is reach. Addition is more peaceful than subtraction. I thought that was the overall goal of this.

Who benefits in the end? not the people. All of this just adds fuel to fire of an already semi volatile situation. It will grow from extreme left vs extreme Right to include those of us who were on the fence about the issue whole time. This will get out of control

Now so called equality is screwing with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That is why when it went to the courts i saw this mess coming. something so simple made so dangerous.

The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes we could have done the same as Ireland. The courts could have ruled it so also. They have that right to put it into our hands as a people. But that does not happen anymore in our present day version of democracy. They wanted the mess. It just perpetuation the income of their profession.

This is why Ireland put it to the vote and did not address it as a constitutional issue. They knew this is what would happen. Now they can get married and that is were it ends. Which is exactly what gay couple wanted. They did not want to open this can of worms.

My Irish relatives are having a field day with topic. yet another topic to bust my chops about.

off to the political section in 3 2 1

Tobias-Reiper · 07-18-2015, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by hagan714

That is what the lawyers want you to believe.

Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true.

The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself.

Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.

As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment".

hagan714 · 07-22-2015, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.

See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue.

The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers.

By doing it this way lawyers have made a dysfunctional set of laws for one group a mess for an even larger portion of society. Which it never needed to be. Add in the marriage to all the other other laws scattered all over the place would have been a strong court case to simplify the laws about gay rights.

This yet again a case were the Legal profession in this country has gone out of their way to perpetuate their profession.

By going along with the lawyers both side have shot themselves in the foot and made a mess into a total disaster.

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment".

The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen. But once you get judges that see the mess that can made and the money to had it was a done deal.

Sorry ethics and morality no matter what side of this issue your on has little to do with the reason the courts went the way they did. they do not care either way IMO. this was a money grab by them.

Courts send the marriage issue to the voters on a national level and tell both sides to get their act together and clean up the mess on the books once and for all.

So in summary

IMO marriage would pass and it would be the nail in the coffin on this topic

With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all.

This is the way they are forcing the issue in Ireland

But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.

Tobias-Reiper · 07-22-2015, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by hagan714

See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue.

What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right.

The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers.

Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone.

The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen.

That is not the case. At all.

With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all. But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.

And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.

hagan714 · 07-23-2015, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right.

Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone.

That is not the case. At all.

And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.

Ireland did grant civil contracts. they are now working on the other laws so there is no misunderstanding or better yet ambiguous laws to protect a persons rights beyond the marriage laws.

In the US laws that indirectly or directly applied to gay rights are on the books. The issue is almost all of them are not clearly stated. Way to much time is needed in court to establish rights to use a law for ones protection. that is probably a better way of putting it. that is the shotgun effect i was talking about. Lawyers making themselves money.

The marriage laws passed here is truly ambiguous at best. Nothing beyond the marriage was addressed clearly. that's is were i point at the lawyers for being at fault. They knew this going in and they knew this when they ruled on it. The judges that ruled against it did not have issue with the rights of gay marriage as much as the issue of the way it was presented. Ambiguous. Lawyers love ambiguous. It makes them needed and makes them money.

I am glad we are not on opposites sides of the big picture on this.

07-18-2015, 06:57 AM	#1
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper I don't think we can do that. As far as I understand it, citizens do not vote on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. We can vote on proposed laws, but once the challenge is raised as to whether any law is unconstitutional, it is up to the courts to make a decision. That is what the lawyers want you to believe. Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true. The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself. A simple nation wide petition would have forced the issue on a ballot. Much like in the last election were businesses were given the same rights as people in covering up campaign contributions. It easily could have been handle this way. Even without having to word the options as double negatives to make sure it passed. By going the legal route it allows for more aggressive changes that really only the extremist of the movement want. IE California doing away with husband and wife terminology because it was anti gay and offensive. Me? I am offended that if i go in and get married we are now a couple. So I am to spend the rest of life making sure anyone who inquires to the state of our marriage is hetero and not homo. This is just the start of making everyone's life more complicated than it has to be. If i lived in California. This will spread. Why not two simple options husband and wife or couple. hell inter mix them wife and wife and husband and husband even you pick. At least equality is reach. Addition is more peaceful than subtraction. I thought that was the overall goal of this. Who benefits in the end? not the people. All of this just adds fuel to fire of an already semi volatile situation. It will grow from extreme left vs extreme Right to include those of us who were on the fence about the issue whole time. This will get out of control Now so called equality is screwing with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That is why when it went to the courts i saw this mess coming. something so simple made so dangerous. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Yes we could have done the same as Ireland. The courts could have ruled it so also. They have that right to put it into our hands as a people. But that does not happen anymore in our present day version of democracy. They wanted the mess. It just perpetuation the income of their profession. This is why Ireland put it to the vote and did not address it as a constitutional issue. They knew this is what would happen. Now they can get married and that is were it ends. Which is exactly what gay couple wanted. They did not want to open this can of worms. My Irish relatives are having a field day with topic. yet another topic to bust my chops about. off to the political section in 3 2 1
	"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins Last edited by hagan714; 07-18-2015 at 07:22 AM..

07-18-2015, 04:04 PM	#2
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive. Originally Posted by hagan714 That is what the lawyers want you to believe. Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true. The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself. Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution. As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment". hagan714 likes this.

07-22-2015, 07:47 AM	#3
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution. See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue. The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers. By doing it this way lawyers have made a dysfunctional set of laws for one group a mess for an even larger portion of society. Which it never needed to be. Add in the marriage to all the other other laws scattered all over the place would have been a strong court case to simplify the laws about gay rights. This yet again a case were the Legal profession in this country has gone out of their way to perpetuate their profession. By going along with the lawyers both side have shot themselves in the foot and made a mess into a total disaster. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment". The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen. But once you get judges that see the mess that can made and the money to had it was a done deal. Sorry ethics and morality no matter what side of this issue your on has little to do with the reason the courts went the way they did. they do not care either way IMO. this was a money grab by them. Courts send the marriage issue to the voters on a national level and tell both sides to get their act together and clean up the mess on the books once and for all. So in summary IMO marriage would pass and it would be the nail in the coffin on this topic With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all. This is the way they are forcing the issue in Ireland But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.
	"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins Last edited by hagan714; 07-22-2015 at 08:11 AM..

07-22-2015, 04:31 PM	#4
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive. Originally Posted by hagan714 See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue. What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right. The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers. Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone. The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen. That is not the case. At all. With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all. But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich. And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

07-23-2015, 08:36 AM	#5
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right. Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone. That is not the case. At all. And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights. Ireland did grant civil contracts. they are now working on the other laws so there is no misunderstanding or better yet ambiguous laws to protect a persons rights beyond the marriage laws. In the US laws that indirectly or directly applied to gay rights are on the books. The issue is almost all of them are not clearly stated. Way to much time is needed in court to establish rights to use a law for ones protection. that is probably a better way of putting it. that is the shotgun effect i was talking about. Lawyers making themselves money. The marriage laws passed here is truly ambiguous at best. Nothing beyond the marriage was addressed clearly. that's is were i point at the lawyers for being at fault. They knew this going in and they knew this when they ruled on it. The judges that ruled against it did not have issue with the rights of gay marriage as much as the issue of the way it was presented. Ambiguous. Lawyers love ambiguous. It makes them needed and makes them money. I am glad we are not on opposites sides of the big picture on this.
	"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/73137-flour-de-lis-offensive.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	07-12-2015 10:15 PM	1
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	07-12-2015 04:38 PM	1
Is the flour De Lis Offensive.	This thread	Refback	07-12-2015 01:45 PM	5