| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS ｷ Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 04:21:02 PM |
|
|
what do YOU think???
I think that DITTO still ditto
and cool is still cool
marriage always been a marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 07:03:27 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 14:21:02 -0700, wrote:
what do YOU think???
I think that DITTO still ditto
and cool is still cool
marriage always been a marriage.
You Fucking Disingenuous twit. Why did you SNIP this:
Marriage used to mean ARRANGED unions.
Marriages used to mean POLITICAL alliances.
Marriages used to mean the women had a substantial DOWRY.
and then have the gall to say "marriage has always been marriage"?
You talk out one side of your mouth saying it's NEVER CHANGED for
thousands of years, and then snip 3 of 100's of examples of where it
HAS CHANGED.
There was a time not so long ago that "Love" was NOT a reason to marry
and if you tried, you wouldn't REALLY be married since that wasn't the
"definition of marriage".
You can hide under you homophobic rock all you want, but every time
you post here you're simply making it easier and easier to see your
real agenda.... and it has NOTHING to do with marriage but EVERYTHING
to do with homosexuals-- either you hate them or are closeted
yourself..... or both?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:44:25 PM |
|
|
You Fucking Disingenuous twit.
very strong argument, I guess hard to find an answer.
I don't see your other arguments very logical, so I thow them away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
26 Sep 2005 01:09:23 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 18:44:25 -0700, wrote:
You Fucking Disingenuous twit.
very strong argument, I guess hard to find an answer.
I don't see your other arguments very logical, so I thow them away.
Of course, you SNIP my arguement and just leave that insult so it
looks as if I didn't respond to you... here's my post again. Care to
respond this time?
Please notice that my LAST post started off with something about you
snipping the post before that... you just put your head in the sand
and ignore the truth, don't you?
Here it is:
Why did you SNIP this:
Marriage used to mean ARRANGED unions.
Marriages used to mean POLITICAL alliances.
Marriages used to mean the women had a substantial DOWRY.
and then have the gall to say "marriage has always been marriage"?
You talk out one side of your mouth saying it's NEVER CHANGED for
thousands of years, and then snip 3 of 100's of examples of where it
HAS CHANGED.
There was a time not so long ago that "Love" was NOT a reason to marry
and if you tried, you wouldn't REALLY be married since that wasn't the
"definition of marriage".
You can hide under you homophobic rock all you want, but every time
you post here you're simply making it easier and easier to see your
real agenda.... and it has NOTHING to do with marriage but EVERYTHING
to do with homosexuals-- either you hate them or are closeted
yourself..... or both?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
26 Sep 2005 02:34:26 PM |
|
|
You can hide under you homophobic rock all you want, but every time
you post here you're simply making it easier and easier to see your
real agenda.... and it has NOTHING to do with marriage but EVERYTHING
to do with homosexuals-- either you hate them or are closeted
yourself..... or both?
What is your problem man? We are agreed on everything, your vision of
the world is uncorrectable, so you can go ahead destroy other lives and
whole society, as long as it makes you happy. I guess anyone who does
not agree with you and is not a brainwashed dumbass is a homophobe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1904 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 08:53:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
Josh Rosenbluth
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 09:13:58 PM |
|
|
"1904 Dead" <zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:pi34j15pvupme7suups0e9ovhm3kqiisqa@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on constitutional
intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
Wouldn't of been much of a factor if it was written after the constitution
now would it?
You can't be that dumb...
....yeah, you can be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 05:46:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
As much a genius as the guy that claimed the First Amendment protected
him against hater.... oh wait.. that was Zepp.
-----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 07:46:57 AM |
|
|
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
Lecture us on "Madison's Farrads", why don't
you, big boy.
As much a genius as the guy that claimed the First
Amendment protected
him against hater.... oh wait.. that was Zepp.
-----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they
get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri
Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law
from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Least we forget that Algore hadn't "invented" the Internet, there was no
electricity, horses were the means of transportation and the inventor of the
telephone wasn't to be born for another sixty odd years. Things moved a tad
slower during that time period.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
Lecture us on "Madison's Farrads", why don't
you, big boy.
As much a genius as the guy that claimed the First
Amendment protected
him against hater.... oh wait.. that was Zepp.
-----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they
get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri
Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law
from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
.
|
|
|
| User: "1907 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:35:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Least we forget that Algore hadn't "invented" the Internet, there was no
electricity, horses were the means of transportation and the inventor of the
telephone wasn't to be born for another sixty odd years. Things moved a tad
slower during that time period.
My gawd, you morons are STILL flogging that idiot's delight of a lie?
You really are exactly like the old Soviet ambassadors, aren't you?
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
Lecture us on "Madison's Farrads", why don't
you, big boy.
As much a genius as the guy that claimed the First
Amendment protected
him against hater.... oh wait.. that was Zepp.
-----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they
get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri
Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law
from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 AM |
|
|
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Least we forget that Algore hadn't "invented" the Internet, there was no
electricity, horses were the means of transportation and the inventor of
the
telephone wasn't to be born for another sixty odd years. Things moved a
tad
slower during that time period.
My gawd, you morons are STILL flogging that idiot's delight of a lie?
You really are exactly like the old Soviet ambassadors, aren't you?
To the contrary, you should attend:
Royal Albert Hall, Friday, March 6th, 1931, 8p.m.
be there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1907 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:12:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
Final version ratified in 1789. Learn some American history, Sistah
Soja.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Least we forget that Algore hadn't "invented" the Internet, there was no
electricity, horses were the means of transportation and the inventor of
the
telephone wasn't to be born for another sixty odd years. Things moved a
tad
slower during that time period.
My gawd, you morons are STILL flogging that idiot's delight of a lie?
You really are exactly like the old Soviet ambassadors, aren't you?
To the contrary, you should attend:
Royal Albert Hall, Friday, March 6th, 1931, 8p.m.
be there.
Oh, gosh, I bet that's really germain to the here and now.
Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: you want to pretend something an
individual said 74 years ago represents everyone who disagrees with
you today, right?
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:34:38 AM |
|
|
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message news:obi5j1hkqioclv7mopcm3jgfkmr063bskc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in
message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely
on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
Final version ratified in 1789. Learn some American
history, Sistah
Soja.
Ah, pig fart, right up there, you say it was
*written* 13 years after the Declaration. It
was *written* 11 years after the Declaration.
It was *ratified* by enough states to take
effect in 1789.
And, pig fart, there was no "final version"
after the version written in 1787. That
was the version that was ratified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:41:23 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iaAYe.110$Ik1.58@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message news:obi5j1hkqioclv7mopcm3jgfkmr063bskc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in
message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo
Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely
on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the
constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
Final version ratified in 1789. Learn some American
history, Sistah
Soja.
Ah, pig fart, right up there, you say it was
*written* 13 years after the Declaration. It
was *written* 11 years after the Declaration.
It was *ratified* by enough states to take
effect in 1789.
Excuse me, the Constitution was ratified by
enough states to take effect in 1788. The
first Congress under the new Constitution
first sat in 1789. The first president was
inagurated in 1789.
And, pig fart, there was no "final version"
after the version written in 1787. That
was the version that was ratified.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 11:02:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:34:38 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message news:obi5j1hkqioclv7mopcm3jgfkmr063bskc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in
message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in
message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely
on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
Final version ratified in 1789. Learn some American
history, Sistah
Soja.
Ah, pig fart, right up there, you say it was
*written* 13 years after the Declaration. It
was *written* 11 years after the Declaration.
It was *ratified* by enough states to take
effect in 1789.
And, pig fart, there was no "final version"
after the version written in 1787. That
was the version that was ratified.
You'll never get a weasel-loon to admit to a mistake, you know...
These morons self-images are way to fragile for that....
-----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 10:22:53 AM |
|
|
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:obi5j1hkqioclv7mopcm3jgfkmr063bskc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:08:32 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"1907 Dead" <zepp1907#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:boc5j1po1inu3tmmonl5tpt0nn5ikeiokm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:45 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5JxYe.97$Ik1.75@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:vh15j19mbhur0bbno29v8bdcjr6iuedpjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:53:04 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:28:03 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127343833.852981.25360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on
constitutional intent.
Define "constitutional intent"?
The Declaratioin of Independence
Which was written 13 years before the constitution.
The Constitution was written in 1787, Tubbster.
That's 11 years after the Declaration.
Final version ratified in 1789. Learn some American history, Sistah
Soja.
The Declaration created the country for which
the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was
later written, replacing the Articles of
Confedration. The Articles were first approved
by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by the
states in 1781.
Least we forget that Algore hadn't "invented" the Internet, there was
no
electricity, horses were the means of transportation and the inventor
of
the
telephone wasn't to be born for another sixty odd years. Things moved
a
tad
slower during that time period.
My gawd, you morons are STILL flogging that idiot's delight of a lie?
You really are exactly like the old Soviet ambassadors, aren't you?
To the contrary, you should attend:
Royal Albert Hall, Friday, March 6th, 1931, 8p.m.
be there.
Oh, gosh, I bet that's really germain to the here and now.
You would be right. For a change.
Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: you want to pretend something an
individual said 74 years ago represents everyone who disagrees with
you today, right?
No.
Gosh, you're just a genius in history, aincha?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:54:43 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:lnv2j1deiu4gvl77angnai1uujt1mc0fp9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:58:04 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:ur22j11825pa3sm10hh7o56s9bdspi8f94@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:08:53 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:9d01j11kt367b9o8uuc5qp4ec403m9v8im@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:12:49 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:06fvi190ijlnmoc2v50gdk4cnb7rhik8a6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:35:27 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:knkti1dl79d5d41oh52rpih4bvitnek8tc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:29:04 -0400, "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote
If the state wishes to allow same-sex
marriage, it has that power, no matter what has been the
practice
before and no matter if churches like it or not.
Define what you mean by "state". Are you referring to the
quantified
represented populace or a judge?
Below is a sentence you cut out of my post. It answers your
question.
My point was that, within the limits of the form of
government existing, it is the state that defines marriage.
Then you agree that judges stay out of it
The courts are part of the existing form of government.
That's what I thought you would say.
Here is all of what I said:
The courts are part of the existing form of government. You really
ought to study the history of your own country. The courts have
judged the constitutionality of laws for a very long time now - since
1803 actually.
I said it because it was the truth. Is that why you avoided it?
The US Constitution is clear on what the judicial branch's powers are.
Judicial review has been accepted by the US since 1803, when Chief
Justice John Marshall found section 13 of the Judicial Act to be
unconstitutional. His decision was accepted and the precedent was
set. Judicial review was confirmed once again in 1857 in the Dredd
Scott decision.
What you're citing here does not empower the judicial branch to make law,
which is what we are talking about.
That may be what you are talking about. The Supreme Court is not
writing law. That is your fantasy.
The judicial branch is meant to be an
intermediate branch between the people who make law, congress, and the
citizenry. Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on constitutional
intent so as to keep congress in check. The courts are not free to make law
at their pleasure or wants. But, they do anyway because they have the guns
to back them up.
They have not written any law.
You
obviously don't have a clue about that.
You continue to ignore reality.
That's not true. I understand fully that judges are continually breaking
their oath and that the US Constitution has become a foundation of jelly.
Only in your fantasy world.
Speaking of avoiding, you won't come
straight out and say that you want judges to write law in favor of small
special interest groups at the expense of everyone else.
You do realize that you are babbling nonsense, right?
My statement is correct. The fact that you won't acknowledge that judges are
rewriting laws contrary to constitutional intent, and instead have chosen to
hide behind a strawman (judicial review) clearly shows your position.
First of all you accused me of wanting the judges to write unfair
laws, even though I never said such a thing. Secondly you continue to
talk about the Court writing laws, which they do not do. You are
babbling.
That's why you've
been doing the soupy shuffle and clinging to your latest straw man.
My latest strawman? Would that be the 200 years of legal precedent
that says the Court has the right of judicial review? That is quite a
strawman.
None of which gives power to the judicial branch to rewrite or write law.
Like I said a strawman.
Yes, judges writing laws is a strawman.
Of
course, according to the real constitution, the Supreme Court can't do
that.
Can't do what?
Make law
They cannot write law.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes you do
Now I do; you are talking about some fantasy of yours.
The Court does have the right of judicial review, and that right has been
recognized by the other two branches of the government for over 200
years now.
That's your strawman, I've never denied "judicial review".
Good, then you have no complaint.
The fact that they have been doing that speaks directly to the
uselessness
of the document.
Doing what?
Rewriting law. In effect, making law.
Care to post the exact words of the law written by the Court?
I strongly suspect, based on my conversations with people
around the country, that very few people outside of DC and law schools
put
very much stock in the voracity of what is presented as the US
Constitution.
"voracity"? I suspect that you mean "veracity", but even that does
not make any sense.
Your attention to spelling errors is noted. It is also noted that you are
completely out of touch with how many people believe that the current form
of the US Constitution is not true to the originals intent, "veracity"
meaning truthfulness.
I see. You think the Constitution is not really the Constitution, and
you think many people agree with you.
There are several good on-line dictionaries at your disposal if you often
run into words you don't understand.
The Constitution is also found there. Of course maybe it is not the
real one. Perhaps that one is hidden.
You mean it is not really the US Constitution; it is just being
presented that way? What are you talking about?
In other words, politicians and lawyers have destroyed the US Constitution
and what we have now is nothing more than a prop, a false platform, used to
project political power of special interests. Original intent is
meaningless. (i.e. Kelo)
If you want power it's the same as it has mostly been throughout history.
If
falls to whoever owns the judges and the guns.
Interesting. So you do not believe in the rule of law.
Not in the current form because it has no foundation. The foundation that
was the US Constitution no longer exists, what we have now is a malleable
document that can be whatever those who own the guns and the judges want it
to be. Original intent is dead.
I would suppose you would say that you don't believe in street justice?
Well, from my observational tower the only reason you would say that is
because of the side of the street you're on.
How fascinating.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:46:17 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f7k4j195i3ugtm4o3jp7k1h9ip1g2h9av6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:54:43 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:lnv2j1deiu4gvl77angnai1uujt1mc0fp9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:58:04 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:ur22j11825pa3sm10hh7o56s9bdspi8f94@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:08:53 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:9d01j11kt367b9o8uuc5qp4ec403m9v8im@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:12:49 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:06fvi190ijlnmoc2v50gdk4cnb7rhik8a6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:35:27 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:knkti1dl79d5d41oh52rpih4bvitnek8tc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:29:04 -0400, "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote
If the state wishes to allow same-sex
marriage, it has that power, no matter what has been the
practice
before and no matter if churches like it or not.
Define what you mean by "state". Are you referring to the
quantified
represented populace or a judge?
Below is a sentence you cut out of my post. It answers your
question.
My point was that, within the limits of the form of
government existing, it is the state that defines marriage.
Then you agree that judges stay out of it
The courts are part of the existing form of government.
That's what I thought you would say.
Here is all of what I said:
The courts are part of the existing form of government. You really
ought to study the history of your own country. The courts have
judged the constitutionality of laws for a very long time now -
since
1803 actually.
I said it because it was the truth. Is that why you avoided it?
The US Constitution is clear on what the judicial branch's powers are.
Judicial review has been accepted by the US since 1803, when Chief
Justice John Marshall found section 13 of the Judicial Act to be
unconstitutional. His decision was accepted and the precedent was
set. Judicial review was confirmed once again in 1857 in the Dredd
Scott decision.
What you're citing here does not empower the judicial branch to make law,
which is what we are talking about.
That may be what you are talking about. The Supreme Court is not
writing law. That is your fantasy.
The judicial branch is meant to be an
intermediate branch between the people who make law, congress, and the
citizenry. Their job is to *interpret* law based solely on constitutional
intent so as to keep congress in check. The courts are not free to make
law
at their pleasure or wants. But, they do anyway because they have the
guns
to back them up.
They have not written any law.
Kelo
You
obviously don't have a clue about that.
You continue to ignore reality.
That's not true. I understand fully that judges are continually breaking
their oath and that the US Constitution has become a foundation of jelly.
Only in your fantasy world.
Kelo
Speaking of avoiding, you won't come
straight out and say that you want judges to write law in favor of
small
special interest groups at the expense of everyone else.
You do realize that you are babbling nonsense, right?
Kelo
My statement is correct. The fact that you won't acknowledge that judges
are
rewriting laws contrary to constitutional intent, and instead have chosen
to
hide behind a strawman (judicial review) clearly shows your position.
First of all you accused me of wanting the judges to write unfair
laws, even though I never said such a thing. Secondly you continue to
talk about the Court writing laws, which they do not do. You are
babbling.
That's why you've
been doing the soupy shuffle and clinging to your latest straw man.
My latest strawman? Would that be the 200 years of legal precedent
that says the Court has the right of judicial review? That is quite a
strawman.
None of which gives power to the judicial branch to rewrite or write law.
Like I said a strawman.
Yes, judges writing laws is a strawman.
Kelo
Of
course, according to the real constitution, the Supreme Court can't do
that.
Can't do what?
Make law
They cannot write law.
They in effect are.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes you do
Now I do; you are talking about some fantasy of yours.
Kelo
The Court does have the right of judicial review, and that right has
been
recognized by the other two branches of the government for over 200
years now.
That's your strawman, I've never denied "judicial review".
Good, then you have no complaint.
Kelo
The fact that they have been doing that speaks directly to the
uselessness
of the document.
Doing what?
Rewriting law. In effect, making law.
Care to post the exact words of the law written by the Court?
It's well known, you look it up. Search: Kelo
I strongly suspect, based on my conversations with people
around the country, that very few people outside of DC and law schools
put
very much stock in the voracity of what is presented as the US
Constitution.
"voracity"? I suspect that you mean "veracity", but even that does
not make any sense.
Your attention to spelling errors is noted. It is also noted that you are
completely out of touch with how many people believe that the current
form
of the US Constitution is not true to the originals intent, "veracity"
meaning truthfulness.
I see. You think the Constitution is not really the Constitution, and
you think many people agree with you.
I think the intent of the US Constitution has long been gone. As far as
"many people agree with you" goes. Yes, there are many. There are also many
that don't. But, most all of the people believe what they see on the teevee
or listen to on the radio. The MM has basically been the commie's privileged
domain up until about ten years ago. That's changing rapidly now.
If the founding fathers were alive now, they would have Washington
surrounded and be hanging politicians and lawyers from light posts.
There are several good on-line dictionaries at your disposal if you often
run into words you don't understand.
The Constitution is also found there. Of course maybe it is not the
real one. Perhaps that one is hidden.
The "real one" can be found everywhere better books are sold. The
Declaration of Independence can be found also.
You mean it is not really the US Constitution; it is just being
presented that way? What are you talking about?
In other words, politicians and lawyers have destroyed the US
Constitution
and what we have now is nothing more than a prop, a false platform, used
to
project political power of special interests. Original intent is
meaningless. (i.e. Kelo)
If you want power it's the same as it has mostly been throughout
history.
If
falls to whoever owns the judges and the guns.
Interesting. So you do not believe in the rule of law.
Not in the current form because it has no foundation. The foundation that
was the US Constitution no longer exists, what we have now is a malleable
document that can be whatever those who own the guns and the judges want
it
to be. Original intent is dead.
I would suppose you would say that you don't believe in street justice?
Well, from my observational tower the only reason you would say that is
because of the side of the street you're on.
How fascinating.
You haven't got a clue in hell.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:27:13 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
16:35:27 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Define what you mean by "state". Are you referring to the quantified
represented populace or a judge?
Defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions based on
that document.
My rights, and yours, are not left to the whims of the majority. If,
for some odd reason 95% of Americans decided your particular brand of
religious faith was illegal tomorrow, it would make no difference
because the Constitution grants freedom of religion.
No, we have several court decisions defining marriage as a civil
right. We have the 14th Amendment stating that rights cannot be
abriged without due process (meaning if you want to deny a couple the
right to marry you have to go into court and show why they should not
be married.) Gay marriage is inevitable.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 10:44:47 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:tllui1hrlbh8kn0dpoib3pnmq0be5che99@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
16:35:27 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Define what you mean by "state". Are you referring to the quantified
represented populace or a judge?
Defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions based on
that document.
My rights, and yours, are not left to the whims of the majority.
What's the deal? Do homosexuals have a non-comprehension gene? No where did
I say majority rule.
And by the way, judges can't make law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 06:03:14 AM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:QALXe.12093$Ix4.693@okepread03...
And by the way, judges can't make law.
Correct. But they can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. The
Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 06:40:26 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgoq9g$6ne$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:QALXe.12093$Ix4.693@okepread03...
And by the way, judges can't make law.
Correct. But they can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. The
Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all.
No, they can't. They can make recommendations to the legislators. At least
that's the way, it's was supposed to be, before the Constitution died.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 11:02:46 AM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:KySXe.12259$Ix4.8373@okepread03...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgoq9g$6ne$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:QALXe.12093$Ix4.693@okepread03...
And by the way, judges can't make law.
Correct. But they can strike down laws that violate the Constitution.
The
Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all.
No, they can't. They can make recommendations to the legislators. At least
that's the way, it's was supposed to be, before the Constitution died.
Perhaps that's true in your country (Buttfuckistan? Slobberovia? Outer
Idiotica?), but in MY country - the United States of America - courts
interpret the Constitution and strike down or uphold laws based on their
constitutionality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 11:26:16 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgpbr4$dk3$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:KySXe.12259$Ix4.8373@okepread03...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgoq9g$6ne$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:QALXe.12093$Ix4.693@okepread03...
And by the way, judges can't make law.
Correct. But they can strike down laws that violate the Constitution.
The
Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all.
No, they can't. They can make recommendations to the legislators. At
least
that's the way, it's was supposed to be, before the Constitution died.
Perhaps that's true in your country (Buttfuckistan? Slobberovia? Outer
Idiotica?), but in MY country - the United States of America - courts
interpret the Constitution and strike down or uphold laws based on their
constitutionality.
Your country, huh, the one with the play-dough constitution where you can,
make-it, shape-it, any way-u-want too.
Enjoy, children.
"Only Stalin, perhaps, was capable of residing over the systemic deformity
he had created. His doubled mind was well suited to the methodology of "the
two truths," as the apparat privately called it. "In short, there is no such
thing as socialism, and the Soviet Union built it."
Koba The Dread (laughter and the twenty million)
Martin Amis
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
