Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dude. Silverlake sits right next to an area (Hollywood) that has had a strong Russian community for DECADES.
That isn't surprising, given the topic of this book - is it really any wonder that past Hollywood movers and shakers were blacklisted as communist sympathizers back when Russia the major unit of the Soviet Union?
However, Harrier views Silver Lake as a distinct neighborhood, separate from Hollywood, and most certainly not as intertwined and perhaps even coterminous as the known Russian community is near and within West Hollywood.
Harrier is well aware of the Russian presence in Los Angeles, but was only trying to highlight one major Russian neighborhood that is in close proximity to a well known gay neighborhood, in response to earlier posts that attacked Russian immigrants for their support for traditional marriage.
Hmmm, well Harrier was rather succinct in that post.
What do you not understand?
The governor and attorney general of California refused to defend Proposition 8 in federal court, which directly led to the SCOTUS ruling vacating the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling to uphold the district court ruling and effectively causing the district court ruling to be in effect. The court said that the proponents of the initiative did not have standing to bring an appeal in federal court. Harrier actually finds the legal argument used to be sound, which is bolstered by the fact that Justice Scalia surprisingly joined the majority in Hollingsworth vs. Perry.
It is also worth noting that Justice Sotomayor surprisingly joined the minority in H vs. P.
Anyway, Proposition 8 was state law, in fact it was part of the state constitution. The elected officials u of California are obligated to uphold state law, and they failed to do so when they refused to defend Proposition 8, because it conflicted with their own opinion. The governor and attorney general are representatives of the citizens of California, and those citizens had twice willingly and clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The elected officials were obligated to execute that law regardless of their personal feelings.
They chose to not do so, and in doing so, violated their oaths of office.
Oi vei zmir. What do you not understand about the Supreme Court and what it ruled about DOMA and what it did about Prop 8? The frivolity, sheer insanity, and money-wasting of anti-gay nutjobs is beyond comprehension. I'm getting to the point where I no longer feel a need to explain things to you anti-gayers. Instead, I'm getting to the point at which I want to laugh and ridicule "you people" and say, "nyah nyah nyah!" every time you losers waste your leaders' money on more anti-gay BS. And hear this, if I've reached that point at which I have ZERO respect for any of you anti-gayers, and seek only to ridicule you as you waste your leaders' money, it's all the doing and fault of you anti-gayers, not me!
Oi vei zmir. What do you not understand about the Supreme Court and what it ruled about DOMA and what it did about Prop 8? The frivolity, sheer insanity, and money-wasting of anti-gay nutjobs is beyond comprehension. I'm getting to the point where I no longer feel a need to explain things to you anti-gayers. Instead, I'm getting to the point at which I want to laugh and ridicule "you people" and say, "nyah nyah nyah!" every time you losers waste your leaders' money on more anti-gay BS. And hear this, if I've reached that point at which I have ZERO respect for any of you anti-gayers, and seek only to ridicule you as you waste your leaders' money, it's all the doing and fault of you anti-gayers, not me!
I'm not an anti gayer but if there's ever a Constitutional amendment to make SSM legal and states don't feel like it then there will be a breakdown. California screwed up from a constitutional standpoint yet I've not seen one pro SSM person on this thread say that it wasn't OK because they did what you wanted.
What do you not understand about the Supreme Court and what it ruled about DOMA and what it did about Prop 8?
Given that the rest of your post was nothing but a nonsensical hate-fest against people who view the issue differently than you, Harrier will only respond to this question, the only non-bigoted part of your post.
Harrier supported the decision in the DOMA case - the SCOTUS ruled correctly.
DOMA was an affront to the right of states to make their own laws concerning marriage.
Harrier is on record on this forum as being opposed to DOMA - and the SCOTUS correctly affirmed that the 1996 law signed by Bill Clinton was unconstitutional.
As for Hollingsworth v. Perry, maybe you don't understand what occurred there.
SCOTUS ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to be defendants in the appeals court and higher, but did have standing in the original federal district action.
Thus, they vacated the Ninth Circuit Court decision, which affirmed the district court decision, and that decision stands today, unfortunately.
The SCOTUS ruling, while technically sound(even Justice Scalia joined the majority while Justice Sotomayor joined the minority) gave carte blanche for state elected officials to dismiss their oath of office and refuse to defend state laws with which they disagree.
It allowed a recipe for tyranny to reign supreme.
The question is then, what do you not understand about how the SCOTUS ruled on DOMA and Prop 8?
You are better informed now - since you have read this post.
Sorry you disagree with that decision. But it was the right decision.
Was that decision right because you agree with the cause? I can't blame you for that and to me it's not an SSM issue. It's an issue of defending that which you agreed to defend. Obviously there was a real controversy or the writs wouldn't have been granted.
But instead of helping unbind the hands of all SSM that want to get married in the country, it's a cop-out and you shouldn't be proud of that.
The Supreme Court was right on the law. Not just anyone can choose to defend a lawsuit they are not a party to. They had no interest at stake. Sorry, that I happen to be happy with the decision. but it was the right one on the merits.
Anyway, you are the village idiot. So why am I even responding to you?
Your lack of using the quote button shows the reverse is true since you do not address anyone in particular.
Plus saying anything was right on the merits when the merits weren't addressed isn't the smartest statement.
You are truly the village idiot, Sir. I responded directly under you. There's no requirement I quote your post.
The merits were that the defendants did not have standing. Fundamental merits, indeed. Not just anyone can choose to defend a lawsuit in place of defendants who no longer wish to defend a lawsuit. Our legal system would be a tragic mess if that were the case.
You are the "Village Idiot" that thinks just because the people passed a law, that makes it Constitutional. Specious logic, that. And that's exactly why the Supreme Court exists. As a check against tyranny. And tyranny was checked.
Checkmate.
Just reped you and cannot give you another yet. They seem to not understand that voters using the system to negate the rights of any minority is tyranny, all they can see is their belief in being superior. The thing about the tyrants is that they do not see themselves that way. They honestly think that what they think is good for them should be mandated for everyone, again tyranny. Fortunately we have the Supreme Court. The ball of freedom is rolling and it will not stop till same sex marriage is legal across the Land of Freedom we call the good old USA.
Just reped you and cannot give you another yet. They seem to not understand that voters using the system to negate the rights of any minority is tyranny, all they can see is their belief in being superior. The thing about the tyrants is that they do not see themselves that way. They honestly think that what they think is good for them should be mandated for everyone, again tyranny. Fortunately we have the Supreme Court. The ball of freedom is rolling and it will not stop till same sex marriage is legal across the Land of Freedom we call the good old USA.
You rep someone that is a name caller and has no idea how threaded forums work? Another good sign for your side.
But the only tyrant (and I hate to use that word because like your use it dumbs it down) is the governor of California.
Tyranny is when one person suppresses the will of the people and that's what happened in this case.
You must have created that other account because most people on the pro side of this issue are pretty smart. But to rep someone who says it has been decided on the merits when it hasn't is a strange way to do business but obviously you are talking to yourself.
You rep someone that is a name caller and has no idea how threaded forums work? Another good sign for your side.
But the only tyrant (and I hate to use that word because like your use it dumbs it down) is the governor of California.
Tyranny is when one person suppresses the will of the people and that's what happened in this case.
You must have created that other account because most people on the pro side of this issue are pretty smart. But to rep someone who says it has been decided on the merits when it hasn't is a strange way to do business but obviously you are talking to yourself.
Excuse, me, you are accusing me of creating another account just to rep that account. I just may turn you in for that. I did no such thing and can rep any one I please. Heck I see you anti gays rep another anti gay when they make nasty and mean remarks about gays. It was decided on the base that the prop 8 supporters had no standing in defending it and the governer himself felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it on that base, he has legal background to tell if something like prop 8 was unconstitutional. Any one who understands equality knows it was unconstitutional as is DOMA and all anti same sex marriage laws. But how dare you accuse me of creating another account. Believe me, I am sure that the moderators would know if I did.
Last edited by TheDragonslayer; 07-02-2013 at 01:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and say, "nyah nyah nyah!" every time you losers waste your leaders' money on more anti-gay BS. And hear this, if I've reached that point at which I have ZERO respect for any of you anti-gayers, and seek only to ridicule you as you waste your leaders' money, it's all the doing and fault of you anti-gayers, not me!
