[talaniman]

I get it, you're ok with the IRS being the new Gestapo.

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

[speechlesstx]

What you and I have a right to is fairness and impartiality, and you can thank us later for fighting on your behalf since you won't.

[smoothy]

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

And Moveon.org or Planned parenthood have never engaged in ANY political activities?

[talaniman]

Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides.

Missed that part huh?

[speechlesstx]

Missed that part huh?

Yes, yes I did. Then we're in agreement, we need to stop the unequal application of the law, right?

[talaniman]

On all fronts.

[cdad]

On all fronts.

That is never going to happen. Ever since this country has granted superior rights then the rest of us are screwed.

[talaniman]

I disagree.

[cdad]

I disagree.

Can you explain? To me so long as superior rights exist then there can never be equality.

[talaniman]

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?

[cdad]

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?

Its written into the laws that give them superior rights. That is why you can never have equality so long as superior rights exist. In the world we live in today there is no reason for anyone to be striving for rights that have to be protected by class. There are legal remidies that exist. And its through the law that disputes can be settled. But in cases of superior rights then you by its very nature cause inequality. You are in effect quashing ones rights in favor of another. Where is the equality in that?

[talaniman]

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

[speechlesstx]

I'm just guessing here but SCOTUS just struck down one at least in part, that affirmative action thing.

[talaniman]

Voter rights section 5 which made changes to voting laws have to be pre cleared for some states and jurisdictions. There is no preclearance, but voting laws can still be challenged in any jurisdiction.

[paraclete]

Well a day for democracy Eh?

[talaniman]

The same laws that the court found discriminatory are now being enacted post haste so expect the same lawsuits.

[paraclete]

Are you saying your legislators don't learn

[cdad]

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

Here is one recent one in the news. When they ruled on DOMA. They gave superior rights to a group of people when in fact the law didn't discriminate but was a definition of law. It is the difference between saying you can't park in front of a fire hydrant without specifics vs having specifics like how far that boundary actually reaches.

By redefining the law from being specific they in fact opened it to superior rights. There is no definition now so those rights can extend to anyone that applies in superior fashion. All they have to do is fit into any class of persons that didn't fit into the previously defined law.

[talaniman]

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

[cdad]

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

You don't seem to understand. Doma was a definition of law. Without it anything goes. The fact that gays are a protected class shows how it involves superior rights. That decision does affect current law with the interest of the State. The fact that they allowed an argument to remove the definition of law and knowing that there were other remidies in place again shows the courts affect in granting superior rights to a law. You keep infering the "same" rights. But that is untrue. If it were just a question of being the "same" then all that apply can and will be married. From this point forward until there is an actual definition anything goes. Poligimy, child / adult marriges all of it. Is that really how we want to be in this country? Without definition of law there can be no law. If its inequality that you seek keep pressing to protect classes of people based on whatever so you can grant superior rights and what you end up with is a lawless unprotected society. If you were to truly promote equality then you will also have to resist superior rights and seek out the normal chain of law to get your remidies. Otherwise were all going to end up criminals of some kind where everything is against the law or we will become completely lawless.

Expand your thinking. Granting superior rights to one class then others will be in line for those same rights because after all its not fair until everyone is equal right ?