Doth he protesteth too much?

Cato wrote: You point the the writings of the bible that thee meaning has changed. In reality that only change has been that man has polluted this writing with his agendas. The scriptures mean what the mean when they were penned many thousands of years ago.

And the Bible, just like the Constitution, was written by men with agendas.

And the Bible has undergone many new versions in those "thousands of years"- again by people with agendas. And so it could not poossibly mean or say what it did thousands of years ago.

Man chooses not to accept their meaning and then attempts to change said meaning by changing the meaning of words. The same is true of Shakespeare and the US Constitution. If that is what one wants, its their choice, but they need to realize they have to accept the consequences of that choice.

You keep saying that- about accepting the consequences of actions- as though it were some great and
unusual revelation. But my less than two year old granddaughter understands that her actions have consequences. Methinks that your problem is that you presume to predict the consequences of the actions of others, and/or would prescribe what those consequences ought to be. But you don't, and you won't- because honest freedom does not allow that.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote: You point the the writings of the bible that thee meaning has changed. In reality that only change has been that man has polluted this writing with his agendas. The scriptures mean what the mean when they were penned many thousands of years ago.

And the Bible, just like the Constitution, was written by men with agendas.

And the Bible has undergone many new versions in those "thousands of years"- again by people with agendas. And so it could not poossibly mean or say what it did thousands of years ago.

And if that is what you believe, its your choice.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote: Man chooses not to accept their meaning and then attempts to change said meaning by changing the meaning of words. The same is true of Shakespeare and the US Constitution. If that is what one wants, its their choice, but they need to realize they have to accept the consequences of that choice.

You keep saying that- about accepting the consequences of actions- as though it were some great and unusual revelation. But my less than two year old granddaughter understands that her actions have consequences. Methinks that your problem is that you presume to predict the consequences of the actions of others, and/or would prescribe what those consequences ought to be. But you don't, and you won't- because honest freedom does not allow that.

Well isn't that special. What I expect is that people appreciate and accept the absolute fact their actions have both rewards and consequences. I expect they accept the consequences of their actions and not piss and moan about how life has been so unfair ro them and expect politicans to force me to bail them out of the situation they got themselves into. As far as being able to name the consequences of one's actions, it is not in my place to prescribe them, niether is it in another's place to demand the fruit of my labor simply because of the supposed "need".

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:
The Constitution labels blacks as 3/5ths a man and women weren't even mentioned. Were getting there but it begs the question, why would you ever think that?

I guess when you gotta grasp for points this works. The fact remains this is now and some of the errors made by the original writers have been corrected.

It is not grasping for "points" to observe changes in the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. That 3/5ths was not an error. It was put into the Constitution quite deliberately- by people with an agenda.

But if you want to change the meaning of words and call that an error- then the "errors" of the Constitution are still being corrected today- to meet the new societal standards of the meanings of the law and of governence.

Grasping at straws again, Aaron. Not once have I ever stated that a homosexual is entitled to less than any other person in this nation.

Oh but yes you have, Cato. You have stated numerous times here that a homosexual person is less entitled to rent a property from you than is a non-homosexual person.

However, I have stated and will continue to state that they are not entitled any additional rights either. Tell me Aaron why should a person receive a greater sentence for commiting an act of violance against a homosexual or black than for commiting the same act against a white or hetrosexual person?

Why should a person receive a greater sentence for committing a sexual crime against a family member (their child, for example) than against any other child? Why should a person receive a greater sentence for committing violence against one's spouse or other family member than against someone else. But they do. And there is a reason for it- to deter the more likely sexual crime or other violence against a family member than against the less likely non-family member.

So since there seems to be a greater propsensity for some people to committ violence against homosexuals, there needs to be a greater deterence to prevent that violence- just as in the family violence situation. The penalty should be designed to deter the crime, period. It is no different than the penalty for stealing ten thousand dollars is more than for stealing a nickel- to deter from the greater temptation to steal more rather than less.

Violence is violence plain and simple and the law certainly ain't going to force people to love each other. That fact of the matter is, under the present laws, a person in a minority is of more value than those fo the majority. Here all this time I thought we were suppose to be equal under the law.

But we are not equal in the minds of others. And so the need for a greater deterence under the law against a greater threat of violence against a minority person is needed to do exactly what you demand, to make us equal under the law. Otherwise the law does not provide for equal deterence of unequal likelihoods of crimes against minorities.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote: You point the the writings of the bible that thee meaning has changed. In reality that only change has been that man has polluted this writing with his agendas. The scriptures mean what the mean when they were penned many thousands of years ago.

And the Bible, just like the Constitution, was written by men with agendas.

And the Bible has undergone many new versions in those "thousands of years"- again by people with agendas. And so it could not poossibly mean or say what it did thousands of years ago.

And if that is what you believe, its your choice.

Yes. And we note that you do not dispute any of it- that the people who wrote the Bible had agendas, and that there have been many versions of the Bible over the centuries.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Why would you think that? Eminent domain has been around since before the Constitution. It being around is why the “takings clause” was inserted into the 5th Amendment and actually restricts the government taking property by ensuring public use and that you will be justly compensated if it is taken.

And I agree if it was for government use. However, the government now takes proeprty from one citizen to give to another under the guise of public use. That's not what the founders intended and if you are honest you know it.

That doesn't change the fact that it has been historically addressed so your assumption that it couldn't happen was wrong.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Maybe under your interpretation. Others see it different and have from day one. And if you rely solely on the 2nd Amendment, it's confusing, what with that well “regulated militia part” and all. And as you don't believe in the dead governing the living, it's not like you can fall back on founding father wishes on this one.

Nope, politicians and activist judges have tried to make it confusing. The amendment is straight forward and only a fool could misunderstand its meaning.

You are exactly right if you rely solely on the 2nd Amendment, the meaning is crystal clear. To guarantee a well regulated militia, you have a right to bear arms. No other reason is given in the Constitution, including hunting or self defense so it really can't get any more straight forward then that, particularly when you eliminate the announced wishes of the dead as you have previously done.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:
The Constitution labels blacks as 3/5ths a man and women weren't even mentioned. Were getting there but it begs the question, why would you ever think that?

I guess when you gotta grasp for points this works. The fact remains this is now and some of the errors made by the original writers have been corrected.

I'm not grasping at anything. You made a claim and I proved you wrong.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:
You are, unless there is probable cause of which has been addressed by the Supreme Court. Granted it's easier for the police to search you today then it used to be but there are still limits and it’s been my experience that if you’re willing to stand up and demand your rights, they’re less likely to be taken.

That is not what the Patriot Act states. You and your property can be searched based on a warrent issued by a hidden court and not naming what it is being searched for.

Actually the hidden court pre-dates the Patriot Act, and like the Patriot act, is only supposed to be used in specific conditions, most notably when terrorism or treason is involved.

But I disagree with that as well. I think the 4th Amendment should be re-instated and the onus of proving guilt placed on the state. If they want a search warrant, go get one based on probable cause as the 4th Amendment clearly states.

That doesn't change the fact that once again, you made a statement and was proven wrong.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Yet when a homosexual does that, you criticize him for forcing his beliefs on you. Why is that, particularly when the violation of those rights is so much more apparent then any you’ve cited?

Grasping at straws again, Aaron. Not once have I ever stated that a homosexual is entitled to less than any other person in this nation. However, I have stated and will continue to state that they are not entitled any additional rights either.

I'm not grasping at anything Cato. As you stated, you have made your views crystal clear. I'm merely pointing out how hypocritical you are on this subject because of those views.

Cato wrote:Tell me Aaron why shoudl a person receive a greater sentence for commiting an act of violance against a homosexual or black than for commiting the same act against a white or hetrosexual person? Violence is violence plain and simple and the law certainly ain't going to force people to love each other. That fact of the matter is, under the present laws, a person in a minority is of more value than those fo the majority. Here all this time I thought we were suppose to be equal under the law.

The conversation is not hate crimes, gay rights or violence, it is the Federal government ignoring the Equal Protection Clause and the reason you support their clearly illegal activity on this subject.

Why do you have to keep attempting to divert the conversation?

Aaron wrote:

Why do you have to keep attempting to divert the conversation?

I haven't diverted anything. Not once can you show where I support denying homosexuals anything. I have stated numerous times that while I personally oppose homosexual marriage, I have no right to use the force of law to force my views on others, just as they have no right to force their views on me. I don't see how I can make things any clearer for you.

As far as the 2nd amendment issue goes, "A well regulated milita" is a preamble and yes it is talking about defence. The right is stated however in the following, "the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unless the word people no longer means people, it is the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.

As far as being hypocritical goes, if that is what you think, so be it.

Cato wrote:
I haven't diverted anything. Not once can you show where I support denying homosexuals anything. I have stated numerous times that while I personally oppose homosexual marriage, I have no right to use the force of law to force my views on others, just as they have no right to force their views on me. I don't see how I can make things any clearer for you.

The government obeying the law and recognizing the equal protection clause is not forcing their views on you.

Cato wrote:As far as the 2nd amendment issue goes, "A well regulated milita" is a preamble and yes it is talking about defence. The right is stated however in the following, "the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unless the word people no longer means people, it is the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.

Without the words of our founding fathers (the dead), then based solely on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, you do have a right to bear arms but the reason is very specific and that is to provide for a well regulated militia and nothing else. And without the dead whom you've said you don't believe should govern the living, you can't make your point.

Cato wrote:As far as being hypocritical goes, if that is what you think, so be it.

Given that the constitution is as clear in what the Equal Protection Clause states, I do. But you're not alone.

There's an old quote that says "For evil to exist good men must do nothing" and that is the case here. Too often people confuse their religious beliefs with there governmental beliefs and that is why they allow the government to violate the constitution.

They mistakenly think that if they demand the government abide by the rules as they are set forth, they are somehow failing their religious obligations to which I simply say, it was Jesus who said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars?"

Aaron wrote:
The conversation is not hate crimes, gay rights or violence, it is the Federal government ignoring the Equal Protection Clause and the reason you support their clearly illegal activity on this subject.

Why do you have to keep attempting to divert the conversation?

The more I thought about this last night the more angry I became. First, I don't know what you've been reading, but obviously it isn't what I have posted. The points I have made fall directly in to the discussion of equal protection and the travasty the court system and politicans have made of it.

Secondly, as a reminder, in one of your past posts you made the statement that the only problems you had with the Fed was the way the spent money. Well, to borrow a thought from Ron Paul. You say you hate the diseases government causes, but you continue to desire to climb in bed with them. You can't have it both ways.

Often times the truth really hurts, which makes some angry. That's why a lot of people don't like fire and brimstone sermons.

And I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain HOW your attempted diversion on eminent domain, the 2nd Amendment or hate crimes fall directly under the Equal Protection Clause. And while you're doing that, perhaps you can explain how equal recognization of a contract doesn't fall under the equal protection clause.

Aaron wrote:Often times the truth really hurts, which makes some angry. That's why a lot of people don't like fire and brimstone sermons.

And I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain HOW your attempted diversion on eminent domain, the 2nd Amendment or hate crimes fall directly under the Equal Protection Clause. And while you're doing that, perhaps you can explain how equal recognization of a contract doesn't fall under the equal protection clause.

When I wrote about items like hate crimes, gun laws, and the like, I was pointing out how the US Constitution has been corrupted for the sake of agendas of the group in power at the time. Your peeing and moaning about the equal protection clause is just one more nail in the coffin of people corrupting the US Constitution for the sake of agenda.

If you are wanting me to say I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I'm not. If you want me to say that I agree with homosexual marriage, I'm not doing that either. Do I think the present law is a violation of the equal protection clause, No I don't. I believe in the original intent of the the Constitution. In other words what was constitutional in 1791 remains so today unless it is changed by amendment and of course the opposite is true in that what was unconstitutional in 1791 remains so today unless changed by amendment. If homosexual marriage has not been recognized in the past, then it is not so today, unless that is changed by amendment.

We can go back and forth about the equal protection clause until the cows come home, but the fact is going to remain that even after the clause was pinned homosexual marriage was still against the law and that was not considered unconstitutional.

You are wrong Cato, I don’t expect you to say anything or take up any cause. You’re the one who in the past has wailed about politicians twisting the constitution to meet their own needs and the corruption involved yet on this issue you have no problem with the corruption.

In fact, you champion it so the way I see it, by taking this stance you are just as bad as every other politician including liberals and activist judges who have twisted the Constitution to meet their preconceived agendas.

As far as I'm concerned, before you cry about the 'twig' in someone else’s eye regarding prostituting the constitution, whether it be eminent domain, illegal search and seizures or 2nd Amendment rights, you better remove the 5000 year old Redwood from yours.

Cato wrote:We can go back and forth about the equal protection clause until the cows come home, but the fact is going to remain that even after the clause was pinned homosexual marriage was still against the law ............

Were there laws against homosexual marriage when the Constitution was first penned? When was homosexual marriage first against the law? When were such laws first challenged?

...

........................... and that was not considered unconstitutional.

Such laws, if they even existed, had not been "considered unconstitutional" because they had not been challenged in the Courts to make a determination of their constitutionality until recently.

Aaron wrote:You are wrong Cato, I don’t expect you to say anything or take up any cause. You’re the one who in the past has wailed about politicians twisting the constitution to meet their own needs and the corruption involved yet on this issue you have no problem with the corruption.

In fact, you champion it so the way I see it, by taking this stance you are just as bad as every other politician including liberals and activist judges who have twisted the Constitution to meet their preconceived agendas.

As far as I'm concerned, before you cry about the 'twig' in someone else’s eye regarding prostituting the constitution, whether it be eminent domain, illegal search and seizures or 2nd Amendment rights, you better remove the 5000 year old Redwood from yours.

Whatever, Aaron. You and Ziggy are alot alike. You all whine about how the politicians , ie government is corrupt and/or costing you money and liberty, but when the rubber meets the road you defend their very actions, you are otherwise condemning. You can't have your cake and eat it also. That doesn't work. You want government and politicians yet you don't want the diseases they carry.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:We can go back and forth about the equal protection clause until the cows come home, but the fact is going to remain that even after the clause was pinned homosexual marriage was still against the law ............

Were there laws against homosexual marriage when the Constitution was first penned? When was homosexual marriage first against the law? When were such laws first challenged?

...

........................... and that was not considered unconstitutional.

Such laws, if they even existed, had not been "considered unconstitutional" because they had not been challenged in the Courts to make a determination of their constitutionality until recently.

If you want to put you reliance in the court system to protect you, that is your choice. However. don't whine when the courts rule based on the aganda of the political ideaolgy in control instead of what the standard dictates. Like so many you want to proclaim no standard truly exists, instead all it relative, yet, this very statement proves you wrong, because it now becomes the standard. A still equals A and the US Constitution still means today exactly what it meant in 1791 unless changed by amendment.


The fact I stated still remains an all the pontification on earth isn't going to change it.

Aaron wrote:You are wrong Cato, I don’t expect you to say anything or take up any cause. You’re the one who in the past has wailed about politicians twisting the constitution to meet their own needs and the corruption involved yet on this issue you have no problem with the corruption.

And I have said, that I oppose homosexual marriage, yet I am NOT willing to use the force of law to have my way or force it on others. What two consenting adults do is between them, they need only accept the responsibility and consequences for their choices. However, I am not willing nor do I champion the cause of corrupting or misinterperting the US Constitution make what I am saying so.

Tell me Cato, what actions of the government am I defending and then you can tell me how recognizing same sex marriage by the government would infringe on yours or anyone else's liberty as well as how would it cost you any money?

Aaron wrote:Tell me Cato, how would the government legally recognizing same sex marriage infringe on yours or anyone else's liberty and how would it cost you any money?

Tell Me Aaron, where the world have I said it would? All I have said is that I oppose misusing, misquoting, or misapplying, the US Constitution to fullfill an agenda. In other words, and so you can understand, I oppose the courts being used to change the US Constitution. I also further oppose the courts being used to supercede the 10th amendment. If you want to straighten this out then I strongly suggest you propose to you congressional delegation they propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating that marriage is a contract between consenting adults and the desire of parties to marry shall not be infringed based for any reason.

Answer my questions Cato.

If you can.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Tell me Cato, how would the government legally recognizing same sex marriage infringe on yours or anyone else's liberty and how would it cost you any money?

Tell Me Aaron, where the world have I said it would? All I have said is that I oppose misusing, misquoting, or misapplying, the US Constitution to fullfill an agenda. In other words, and so you can understand, I oppose the courts being used to change the US Constitution. I also further oppose the courts being used to supercede the 10th amendment. If you want to straighten this out then I strongly suggest you propose to you congressional delegation they propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating that marriage is a contract between consenting adults and the desire of parties to marry shall not be infringed based for any reason.

The Consitution already says this. See the 14th Amendment and the associated case law.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:We can go back and forth about the equal protection clause until the cows come home, but the fact is going to remain that even after the clause was pinned homosexual marriage was still against the law ............

Were there laws against homosexual marriage when the Constitution was first penned? When was homosexual marriage first against the law? When were such laws first challenged?

...

........................... and that was not considered unconstitutional.

Such laws, if they even existed, had not been "considered unconstitutional" because they had not been challenged in the Courts to make a determination of their constitutionality until recently.

If you want to put you reliance in the court system to protect you, that is your choice.

It is the Constitution, not Ziggy, that relies on the Courts to settle question of the law and the Constitution.

From Article 3, section 2:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

It says all cases arising under the Constitution.

What part of all do you not understand?

It is not about agenda. It is about how we settle questions about the laws and the Constitution.

The people with the "agenda" are those who seek- as relates to marriage of same gendered couples- to use laws to render useless the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment .

If you don't want to have a same sex marriage, Cato, then don't. It is none of your business whether the two women or two men down the road from you have a same sex marriage. Live and let live. That is what freedom is about.

ziggy wrote:

If you don't want to have a same sex marriage, Cato, then don't. It is none of your business whether the two women or two men down the road from you have a same sex marriage. Live and let live. That is what freedom is about.

Are you just stupid or a complete blithering idiot. For the final time moron, I'm going to spell it out for you so maybe you get the big picture.

First, I don't give a tinkers damn what consenting adults do, so long as they are responsbile for their actions and willingly accept the consequences of those actions, whatever they maybe. However, I expect the same consideration from them. I'll be responbile for me they can be responsibile for them.

Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that proper government exists for only one reason and that is to defend liberty and rights. It is proper for the government to have policemen to protect the public from criminals. It is proper for the government to the military to protect the public for foreign threats. Finally it is proper for the government to provide a court system where disputes between people can be settled based on objective law. For the government to be involved in anything else is not proper or necessary. That means that it is not proper for government to define what is and isn't marriage.

Third, you can tout the court system until the cows come home, but it is a joke and failure. As I was pointing out to the other board expert, Aaron, the court system has changed the intent and meaning a a number of laws, immenint domain, the right to keep and bear arms, search and seziure, and the taking of property without due process. Now you can put your faith there, but I remind you that laws have become subjective, thanks to the court system and politicans. Any law that is subject to interpretation is flawed and worthless. Actually it meaningless because its meaning can be changed based on the agenda of particular group in power. Law is suppose to be a standard in other words A has to be A always, no matter what the occasion or who is considering it.

Now, you can get all loved up to your beloved joke of a court system, if you want, but all you are doing is the same thing that has been done for thousands of years. You are proxying your ability to think and reason to power mongers who may rule one way today and another tomorrow.

One last thing, I stand opposed to homosexual marriage. As I have said so many times already, I have no right to force my views on others who may disagree, the same as they have no right to force their views on me. To put this in a manner your little mind might comprehend, if homosexuals want to marry fine, however, to don't come to me and demand or use the force of law to require me to rent to then.

I see the problem. Cato doesn’t under the constitution.

Either that or he understands it, knows he's flat out wrong as this is not an issue of the government defining marriage but simply a contractual issue and the recognition of such by the government, which is applying bigotry on this case and he doesn't have a problem with it.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

If you don't want to have a same sex marriage, Cato, then don't. It is none of your business whether the two women or two men down the road from you have a same sex marriage. Live and let live. That is what freedom is about.

Are you just stupid or a complete blithering idiot. For the final time moron, I'm going to spell it out for you so maybe you get the big picture.

First, I don't give a tinkers damn what consenting adults do, so long as they are responsbile for their actions and willingly accept the consequences of those actions, whatever they maybe. However, I expect the same consideration from them. I'll be responbile for me they can be responsibile for them.

But more and more it appears that your idea of "being responsible" for their actions means being responsible to your values. We are all always responsible for our actions- and including about who we marry.

Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that proper government exists for only one reason and that is to defend liberty and rights. It is proper for the government to have policemen to protect the public from criminals. It is proper for the government to the military to protect the public for foreign threats. Finally it is proper for the government to provide a court system where disputes between people can be settled based on objective law. For the government to be involved in anything else is not proper or necessary. That means that it is not proper for government to define what is and isn't marriage.

OK then. Tell that to state legislatures that are trying to define marriage. It is only the Courts that put a halt to that.

Third, you can tout the court system until the cows come home, but it is a joke and failure.

Then the Constitution is a "joke and a failure". Because the Courts are a creation of the Constitution- with the Constitutional power to settle questions about the law and the Constitution.

As I was pointing out to the other board expert, Aaron, the court system has changed the intent and meaning a a number of laws, immenint domain, the right to keep and bear arms, search and seziure, and the taking of property without due process. Now you can put your faith there, but I remind you that laws have become subjective, thanks to the court system and politicans.

Every human institution is subjective, because the human mind is subjective.

Any law that is subject to interpretation is flawed and worthless.

Then every law that was ever promulgated is flawed and worthless. Because no two human minds think alike. Some entity- be it an all powerful king, or a Court system- has to settle questions about what the law means. Leaving it up to mere simpletons like Ziggy or Cato to tell us how simple the law is and how it should always means the same to everyone is to solve nothing.

Actually it meaningless because its meaning can be changed based on the agenda of particular group in power. Law is suppose to be a standard in other words A has to be A always, no matter what the occasion or who is considering it.

Such an idealistic mindset does not comport with the natural differences in all of our thinking and differences in our attitudes about what words, phrases and sentences mean in the context of our own experiences in life. The only way to have such a unitary standard is to recognize an absolute king who not only makes the laws, but tells us what they mean.

Now, you can get all loved up to your beloved joke of a court system, if you want, but all you are doing is the same thing that has been done for thousands of years. You are proxying your ability to think and reason to power mongers who may rule one way today and another tomorrow.

Again, it is not me but the Constitution that appoints the Courts to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution. As a self-annointed Constitutional expert, how would you have done it differently?

One last thing, I stand opposed to homosexual marriage. As I have said so many times already, I have no right to force my views on others who may disagree, the same as they have no right to force their views on me. To put this in a manner your little mind might comprehend, if homosexuals want to marry fine, however, to don't come to me and demand or use the force of law to require me to rent to them.

If you are in the business of providing public accomodations, then you need to be prepared to abide by public law that the Courts determine to be constitutional in regard to such public accomodations.

Aaron wrote:I see the problem. Cato doesn’t under the constitution.

Either that or he understands it, knows he's flat out wrong as this is not an issue of the government defining marriage but simply a contractual issue and the recognition of such by the government, which is applying bigotry on this case and he doesn't have a problem with it.

You and Ziggy are the one's that keep saying I don't understand the US Constitution. Then you and he have the guts to refer to me as a bigot, then Ziggy has the gall to say I have to recognize queer marriages, but I'm not entitled to the "quite enjoyment" of my property. I don't think either you know what you want other than to prove how ignorant you really are.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I see the problem. Cato doesn’t under the constitution.

Either that or he understands it, knows he's flat out wrong as this is not an issue of the government defining marriage but simply a contractual issue and the recognition of such by the government, which is applying bigotry on this case and he doesn't have a problem with it.

You and Ziggy are the one's that keep saying I don't understand the US Constitution. Then you and he have the guts to refer to me as a bigot, then Ziggy has the gall to say I have to recognize queer marriages, but I'm not entitled to the "quite enjoyment" of my property. I don't think either you know what you want other than to prove how ignorant you really are.

I'm still waiting on you to show how the government acting in a legal manner and abiding by the 14th Amendment infringes on your rights or in any way, shape or form or has anything to do with your quite enjoyment Cato.

Why don't you quit trying to divert the conversation and answer what is clear to anyone willing to take 10 minutes and actually read the Equal Protection Clause.