| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Albert" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2004 05:57:40 PM |
| Object: |
Re: 2,000 gay marriages in SF by tonight! |
Gay marriages aren't valid because they are not recognized by G-O-D.
Period.
I don't care how many marriage certificates or licenses you have, they don't
mean a thing because to God a marriage only is valid if it is between a MAN
and a WOMAN.
Those gay marriage certificates are about as valid as the surprise inside a
Cracker Jacks box.
"shrek" <shrek@at.the.net> wrote in message
news:qsv130dr5s7ehp4rmfpp9gn79fdq83s3r1@127.0.0.1...
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of same-sex couples lined up outside City Hall
in heavy rain early Monday, waiting for city offices to open so they
could join more than 1,700 other gay and lesbian couples who have
exchanged vows in the last few days.
Despite miserable weather and the Presidents Day holiday, many couples
camped out throughout the night. Though City Hall was scheduled to
open at 10 a.m., City Assessor Mabel Teng said she would try to open
her office earlier because of the demand.
Teng said many of the city workers who helped process the marriage
licenses throughout the holiday weekend were volunteering their time.
"I am just very honored to be involved in this significant and
history-making event," Teng said Monday morning. "I'm so proud to be
part of it."
Since San Francisco officials began issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples on Thursday, hundreds of gays and lesbians have wed -
many rushing to California from across the country.
While hundreds of same-sex marriages kept City Hall offices buzzing
through the weekend, conservative activists promised a relentless
legal challenge.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund sued to block the same-sex
unions, and San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren has
scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the case. A second legal challenge
filed by a California group is also scheduled for a court hearing
Tuesday. Briefs were due Monday.
More than 1,700 marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples
since Thursday. Although some may choose to wait before actually
getting married, hundreds have already gone before city officials to
exchange vows and be declared "spouses for life," often in ceremonies
scattered around the interior of the ornate City Hall.
New Mayor Gavin Newsom touched off the wedding spree by ordering
officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was
merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians. Newsom later
officiated personally at the weddings of his chief of staff and policy
director, both of whom married their longtime partners.
Critics have pointed to a ballot initiative approved by California
voters in 2000 that says the state will only recognize marriages
between a man and woman. Randy Thomasson, the director of the Campaign
for California Families, one of the groups challenging the marriages
in court, said last week that Newsom "can't play God."
On Sunday, a small group of protesters stood across the street from
City Hall holding signs protesting same-sex unions.
But the critics seemed to make little difference to most of the people
inside the building, where the mood was both busy and joyous. Many
clerks and sheriff's deputies volunteered their time to work over the
weekend.
Rich Walker and Brad Chilcoat, who have owned a home together in San
Francisco for the last three and a half years, exchanged their vows at
the top of City Hall's grand staircase, and said later that the city's
recognition of their union added special meaning.
"It's official. It's official," Walker said, displaying the marriage
certificate stamped with both their names.
The certificate, Chilcoat said, "moves us from second-class citizens
to equal status."
Walker, 50, and Chilcoat, 41, walked out of City Hall arm-in-arm,
cheered by the crowds of people waiting outside.
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: 2,000 gay marriages in SF by tonight! |
25 Feb 2004 12:51:43 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:51:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "C.J.W." <watt2020@bellatlantic.net> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:20:54 -0600, a stranger
called by some "scott" <BySSpam@nonoSpam.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
Even in seventh grade kids know that gay life is sick.
Seventh graders also tend to think that cooties exist. Great polling
sample.
What they're referring to is common sense, common sense that even
children have.
So, are you willing to turn the management of your life savings to
seventh graders? After all, they'd obviously use their common sense
to manage your retirement wisely.
Of course, back when I was in seventh grade I was told that becaise I
was a Catholic it meant that I wan't really an American, and that this
was a law.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 12:37:43 PM |
|
|
Bush is pretending that he wants to amend the constitution,
but in reality the plan is for the amendment to fail.
Why?
So they can then turn to the states -- "In desperation" -- to
call for a constitutional convention... supposedly just to
address the "issue" of gay marriage.
Everything is up for grabs in a constitutional convention.
Everything.
The one & only time the United States had a constitutional
convention was more than 200 years ago, and the result was
the complete destruction of the government we had at the time,
replaced by our present form of government.
So, what kind of huge, sweeping changes would likely be the
result of the neo-con constitutional convention?
They've already told you!
For example, Bush has been yapping a lot about "activist"
judges lately. Yes, it is ironic that a man appointed to the
Whitehouse by a 5-to-4 decision by "activist judges" would
have any complaints, but none the less he's been complaining.
Our present form of government has three branches: The
legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (President)
and the judicial branch (those "activist judges").
The powers where divided between the three branches so as
to keep any one branch from getting too strong. The President
would literally become a dictator without the balance of the
other two branches, while congress, especially the house, is the
most influenced by ever-changing popular opinion. Congress
tends to be "for" or "Against" whatever happens to be popular
that particular day... even if it's exactly the opposite of what
was popular the previous day.
The courts provide a balance to the two. The President isn't a
dictator, he can't pronounce "right" and "wrong" on a whim, and
congressional support on an issue is forced to outlast the next
opinion poll, as the balance of the courts won't allow them to
simply declare a new "right" and "wrong" on a daily basis.
This will vanish after Bush's constitutional convention.
Another thing that will vanish -- and the neo-cons have said so
many times -- is the seperation of church & state. Religious
"Majorities" will now be able to force religious "Minorities"
to practice majority faiths.
Catholics, Orthodox Christians & smaller Protestant sects will
send their children to schools where the "Majority" has mandated
that their religious beliefs are taught, their prayers are led by the
teachers.
This alone will cause violence.
The 65 million Catholics in this country, alone, will not tolerate it.
Millions more card-carry Christians, Orthodox and some Protestants,
will be just as unhappy.
Then there's atheists, followers of eastern religions, Muslims, Jews
and a whole lot of other people.
Gun rights -- the 2nd amendment -- is something else that will vanish.
Yes, I know, that sounds crazy, but it's true. But don't take my word on
it. By all means, go educate yourself. As much as the Republicans
claim to be the staunchest defenders of gun rights, they keep nominating
judges who are strictly anti-gun rights.
Remember judge Bork? You've heard his name before. The right-wing
is still screaming about the oh so *Terrible* way the Democrats refused
to confirm him. Well, go check his record, his writings. He's a gun-control
advocates dream come true.
The same is true for many of Bush's recent judicial appointments. If the
Republicans are supportive of the second amendment, like they pretend,
then why do they keep trying to appoint "activist judges" who are against
gun ownership rights?
What else is gone?
The income tax!
Sounds great, huh?
Well, what do you think will replace it? If you guessed a
"consumption tax" or a "value added" tax you'd be right.
What this means is that the tax base will be moved squarely on the
shoulders of the middle class & working poor.
How?
By far, the vast majority of every dollar the middle class & working
poor earns goes to day-to-day living. You buy things with your
money. Almost all of it. Almost every dime you earn goes to food,
housing, healthcare, clothing, entertainment & vacations.
With "value added" and "consumption" taxes, you only pay taxes on
the money you spend. If you spend 90% of your earnings, you pay
taxes on 90% of the money you earn.
Rich people simply don't spend the same percentage of their income
as the middle class does.
The result of this is that, though the top 1% richest people have just as
much money as the bottom 40% of people, far more taxes would come
from the bottom 40% than the top 1%.
Take all the money the top 1% of the richest people have & put it into
a pile. Take all the money the bottom 40% of Americans have and
place it into a pile. The two piles will be the exact same size, but when
it comes to taxes, for every handful of cash you grab out of the 1%
pile you'll have to grab a dozen (or more) handfuls out of the 40% pile.
The middle class working poor will be literally subsidizing the rich.
Not that you aren't already -- thanks in part to Bush's tax plan -- but even
more so than ever before.
And, oh, kiss Social Security "Good Bye."
These are just some of the changes you'd see. There'd be more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 01:38:45 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sv2dnXE6itgad6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
Bush is pretending that he wants to amend the constitution,
but in reality the plan is for the amendment to fail.
Why?
It is also possible that he is throwing red meat to the base, and that he
knows and doesn't really care that the amendment will fail.
Slainte,
Fletch
So they can then turn to the states -- "In desperation" -- to
call for a constitutional convention... supposedly just to
address the "issue" of gay marriage.
Everything is up for grabs in a constitutional convention.
Everything.
The one & only time the United States had a constitutional
convention was more than 200 years ago, and the result was
the complete destruction of the government we had at the time,
replaced by our present form of government.
So, what kind of huge, sweeping changes would likely be the
result of the neo-con constitutional convention?
They've already told you!
For example, Bush has been yapping a lot about "activist"
judges lately. Yes, it is ironic that a man appointed to the
Whitehouse by a 5-to-4 decision by "activist judges" would
have any complaints, but none the less he's been complaining.
Our present form of government has three branches: The
legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (President)
and the judicial branch (those "activist judges").
The powers where divided between the three branches so as
to keep any one branch from getting too strong. The President
would literally become a dictator without the balance of the
other two branches, while congress, especially the house, is the
most influenced by ever-changing popular opinion. Congress
tends to be "for" or "Against" whatever happens to be popular
that particular day... even if it's exactly the opposite of what
was popular the previous day.
The courts provide a balance to the two. The President isn't a
dictator, he can't pronounce "right" and "wrong" on a whim, and
congressional support on an issue is forced to outlast the next
opinion poll, as the balance of the courts won't allow them to
simply declare a new "right" and "wrong" on a daily basis.
This will vanish after Bush's constitutional convention.
Another thing that will vanish -- and the neo-cons have said so
many times -- is the seperation of church & state. Religious
"Majorities" will now be able to force religious "Minorities"
to practice majority faiths.
Catholics, Orthodox Christians & smaller Protestant sects will
send their children to schools where the "Majority" has mandated
that their religious beliefs are taught, their prayers are led by the
teachers.
This alone will cause violence.
The 65 million Catholics in this country, alone, will not tolerate it.
Millions more card-carry Christians, Orthodox and some Protestants,
will be just as unhappy.
Then there's atheists, followers of eastern religions, Muslims, Jews
and a whole lot of other people.
Gun rights -- the 2nd amendment -- is something else that will vanish.
Yes, I know, that sounds crazy, but it's true. But don't take my word on
it. By all means, go educate yourself. As much as the Republicans
claim to be the staunchest defenders of gun rights, they keep nominating
judges who are strictly anti-gun rights.
Remember judge Bork? You've heard his name before. The right-wing
is still screaming about the oh so *Terrible* way the Democrats refused
to confirm him. Well, go check his record, his writings. He's a
gun-control
advocates dream come true.
The same is true for many of Bush's recent judicial appointments. If the
Republicans are supportive of the second amendment, like they pretend,
then why do they keep trying to appoint "activist judges" who are against
gun ownership rights?
What else is gone?
The income tax!
Sounds great, huh?
Well, what do you think will replace it? If you guessed a
"consumption tax" or a "value added" tax you'd be right.
What this means is that the tax base will be moved squarely on the
shoulders of the middle class & working poor.
How?
By far, the vast majority of every dollar the middle class & working
poor earns goes to day-to-day living. You buy things with your
money. Almost all of it. Almost every dime you earn goes to food,
housing, healthcare, clothing, entertainment & vacations.
With "value added" and "consumption" taxes, you only pay taxes on
the money you spend. If you spend 90% of your earnings, you pay
taxes on 90% of the money you earn.
Rich people simply don't spend the same percentage of their income
as the middle class does.
The result of this is that, though the top 1% richest people have just as
much money as the bottom 40% of people, far more taxes would come
from the bottom 40% than the top 1%.
Take all the money the top 1% of the richest people have & put it into
a pile. Take all the money the bottom 40% of Americans have and
place it into a pile. The two piles will be the exact same size, but when
it comes to taxes, for every handful of cash you grab out of the 1%
pile you'll have to grab a dozen (or more) handfuls out of the 40% pile.
The middle class working poor will be literally subsidizing the rich.
Not that you aren't already -- thanks in part to Bush's tax plan -- but
even
more so than ever before.
And, oh, kiss Social Security "Good Bye."
These are just some of the changes you'd see. There'd be more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 02:01:03 PM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It is also possible that he is throwing red meat to the base,
and that he knows and doesn't really care that the
amendment will fail.
No it's not.
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
I keep pointing out -- and people keep ignoring me -- but it was
the Republicans who stopped Massachusetts from passing a
state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.
The Republicans switched sides, voted against a compromise
amendment.
The "Compromise" would have constitutionally banned gay
marriages even as it created gay "civil unions."
This was to appease Democrats who didn't believe gay marriage
opponents would pass an alternative to gay marriage, once a
constitutional amendment had been voted through.
But the Republicans killed it.
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 02:51:10 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It is also possible that he is throwing red meat to the base,
and that he knows and doesn't really care that the
amendment will fail.
No it's not.
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by 38 states. I
don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't think so
either.
Slainte,
Fletch
I keep pointing out -- and people keep ignoring me -- but it was
the Republicans who stopped Massachusetts from passing a
state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.
The Republicans switched sides, voted against a compromise
amendment.
The "Compromise" would have constitutionally banned gay
marriages even as it created gay "civil unions."
This was to appease Democrats who didn't believe gay marriage
opponents would pass an alternative to gay marriage, once a
constitutional amendment had been voted through.
But the Republicans killed it.
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 08:27:58 AM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by
38 states.
Yes. And he's got the votes.
Right now, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people
in 39 states. Only 11 have "gay rights" laws offering protections
in employment and housing.
So Bush needs 38 states, and 39 states say it's perfectly acceptable
to deny employment & housing to people simply because they're
gay.
It's a done deal.
I don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't
think so either.
Bush is hoping it doesn't happen. The plan is to use this to call a
constitutional convention.
You've been warned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 11:23:47 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q8CdnThiaP7jnKPdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by
38 states.
Yes. And he's got the votes.
Right now, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people
in 39 states. Only 11 have "gay rights" laws offering protections
in employment and housing.
So Bush needs 38 states, and 39 states say it's perfectly acceptable
to deny employment & housing to people simply because they're
gay.
It's a done deal.
Hardly. Passage of discriminatory local- and state-level statutes is a much
different issue than ratification of a Constitutional amendment.
I don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't
think so either.
Bush is hoping it doesn't happen. The plan is to use this to call a
constitutional convention.
You've been warned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 09:27:56 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q8CdnThiaP7jnKPdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by
38 states.
Yes. And he's got the votes.
No, not until the ratification is put to a vote in the states, if it even
gets out of Congress.
Right now, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people
in 39 states. Only 11 have "gay rights" laws offering protections
in employment and housing.
So Bush needs 38 states, and 39 states say it's perfectly acceptable
to deny employment & housing to people simply because they're
gay.
It's a done deal.
I disagree. And so do many Democrat and Republican senators and
congressman. Barely a majority of the country supports an amendment.
Nothing is a done deal.
Slainte,
Fletch
I don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't
think so either.
Bush is hoping it doesn't happen. The plan is to use this to call a
constitutional convention.
You've been warned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kw" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 03:26:59 PM |
|
|
In article <2V7%b.4664$f61.2570@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
notme31415@yahoo.com says...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It is also possible that he is throwing red meat to the base,
and that he knows and doesn't really care that the
amendment will fail.
No it's not.
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by 38 states. I
don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't think so
either.
Yet, a simple majority of activist judges legislating
from the bench change the meaning of the Constitution
all of the time.
--
Increase the likelihood that your child's school will
be car-bombed---Vote Kerry 2004!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 08:29:47 AM |
|
|
"kw" <1@1.1.0.1.1.1.net> wrote
Yet, a simple majority of activist judges
"Activist judges" is the line invented by Bush, the "President"
appointed to the Whitehouse by five "Activist judges."
The damn hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 11:18:25 PM |
|
|
"kw" <1@1.1.0.1.1.1.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa6cf194b06cceb9899f4@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
In article <2V7%b.4664$f61.2570@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
notme31415@yahoo.com says...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
It is also possible that he is throwing red meat to the base,
and that he knows and doesn't really care that the
amendment will fail.
No it's not.
It can't fail. He has more than enough votes to pass it, just as
they did in Massachusetts.
But an amendment to the US Constitution must be ratified by 38 states.
I
don't think this will happen. I'm guessing that Bush doesn't think so
either.
Yet, a simple majority of activist judges legislating
from the bench change the meaning of the Constitution
all of the time.
Which may or may not be true -
but it IS true that republicans constantly bellowing about "judges
legislating from the bench" is nothing more than a shell game fraud when
judges vote AGASINT ultra right wing conservatives issues.
All the republicans want is "judges to legislate from the bench" in their
favor!
--
Increase the likelihood that your child's school will
be car-bombed---Vote Kerry 2004!
Increase the likelihood that insane and deranged lies, like this, will keep
coming from the republicans - and even the White House ...... vote Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kw" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 12:57:15 AM |
|
|
In article <103r0cqea6qdm25@corp.supernews.com>,
ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com says...
Which may or may not be true -
but it IS true that republicans constantly bellowing about "judges
legislating from the bench" is nothing more than a shell game fraud when
judges vote AGASINT ultra right wing conservatives issues.
Judges are not supposed to be voting against issues. To
do so is legislating from the bench. They are supposed
to judge according to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE LAW.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 10:16:34 AM |
|
|
"kw" <1@0.1.1.1.1.1.1.org.usa> wrote
Judges are not supposed to be voting against issues.
Of course they are!
It's called "The seperation of powers," and it was the expressed
intent of the founders of this nation.
What they didn't want was a court system that rubber-stamped
anything the President said. That would be a dictatorship.
So, they created they seperate branches of government, and divided
power amongst them.
There's the legislative branch (the congress), the executive branch
(the President) and the judicial branch (those judges Bush lies
about).
For further information: Please re-take that elementary level civics
class you so obviously slept through.
To
do so is legislating from the bench. They are supposed
to judge according to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE LAW.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 01:52:26 PM |
|
|
kw <1@0.1.1.1.1.1.1.org.usa> wrote in message news:<MPG.1aa754c51d6b8e53989a0e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In article <103r0cqea6qdm25@corp.supernews.com>,
ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com says...
Which may or may not be true -
but it IS true that republicans constantly bellowing about "judges
legislating from the bench" is nothing more than a shell game fraud when
judges vote AGASINT ultra right wing conservatives issues.
Judges are not supposed to be voting against issues. To
do so is legislating from the bench. They are supposed
to judge according to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE LAW.
And who are the ones not doing this? The neo-con judges like Scalia.
He and his kind want to rule contrary to the constitution. And then
claim the constitution means what they rule instead of what it says.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 04:08:34 PM |
|
|
Yet, a simple majority of activist judges legislating
from the bench change the meaning of the Constitution
all of the time.
Oh, you mean like the Presbyterian Elder, Goldwater-conservative,
Nixon-appointed lifelong Republican Alfred Goodwin, who wrote the majority
opinion in the Newdow case? Or perhaps you mean Rehnquist, who just wrote the
majority opinion in the case which upheld the ban on public funding of
religious scholarships? Or perhaps you mean Jackson, the lead prosecutor at
Nuremburg and vehement anti-Nazi, who wrote the majority opinion in the
Barnette case in 1943, which upheld that compulsory recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance was not only unconstitutional but anti-American.
Seems to me like your problem is with CONSERVATIVE judges which limit the power
of government, not with so-called activist liberal judges.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 09:00:51 AM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.complex> wrote
Seems to me like your problem is with CONSERVATIVE
judges which limit the power of government, not with
so-called activist liberal judges.
No, their problem is with the seperation of powers.
Bush doesn't like having the government's power spread out
of the three branches, and the judicial branch is his first
target.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cleopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 06:13:05 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
That's because it's a certain winner and will guarantee Bush another
four years as president. Anytime the people get to have their voices
felt on these liberal social issues, the liberals and faggots always
lose. And thy know it better than anyone. Abortion is another example
of this. Put to the people, late term abortions would stop tomorrow.
(Cleopatra)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 08:32:30 AM |
|
|
"Cleopatra" <Cleopatra@linkedto.no-spam-allowed.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
That's because it's a certain winner and will guarantee Bush
another four years as president.
So you admit it.
That's good.
Because anyone can go on google and find the roll call votes on
the Massachusetts state constitutional amendment banning gay
marriages. Anyone can see for themselves that more than enough
Democrats switched sides to pass just such an amendment, but
even more Republicans switched sides in order to defeat it.
The Republicans worked hard in order to keep this issue alive,
breath into it new life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
25 Feb 2004 11:19:11 PM |
|
|
"Cleopatra" <Cleopatra@linkedto.no-spam-allowed.com> wrote in message
news:1be75d4a.0402251613.3415c8ec@posting.google.com...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
That's because it's a certain winner and will guarantee Bush another
four years as president. Anytime the people get to have their voices
felt on these liberal social issues, the liberals and faggots always
lose. And thy know it better than anyone. Abortion is another example
of this. Put to the people, late term abortions would stop tomorrow.
(Cleopatra)
Kiss my asp ........... *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kw" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 12:55:04 AM |
|
|
In article <103r0e5fp1e9k5f@corp.supernews.com>,
ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com says...
Kiss my asp ........... *****!
Move your nose.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 01:57:03 PM |
|
|
(Cleopatra) wrote in message news:<1be75d4a.0402251613.3415c8ec@posting.google.com>...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
That's because it's a certain winner and will guarantee Bush another
four years as president. Anytime the people get to have their voices
felt on these liberal social issues, the liberals and faggots always
lose. And thy know it better than anyone. Abortion is another example
of this. Put to the people, late term abortions would stop tomorrow.
(Cleopatra)
Possibly. And if you had put black civil rights to a vote back in the
fifties? You cannot vote to deny someone their constitutional rights.
If we could vote away someone's constitutional rights we'd all be in
trouble. Starting with mean little bitches like you.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 11:48:14 PM |
|
|
Possibly. And if you had put black civil rights to a vote back in the
fifties? You cannot vote to deny someone their constitutional rights.
If we could vote away someone's constitutional rights we'd all be in
trouble. Starting with mean little bitches like you.
Back in 1943 when a bunch of West Virginia rednecks wanted to take away the
rights of a particular religious group the Supreme Court stepped in with one of
their greatest decisions and told them to stop acting like the people we were
at war with.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of
majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental
rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections....If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it
is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens
to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances
which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." - US Supreme Court,
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 05:15:11 AM |
|
|
(Cleopatra) wrote in message news:<1be75d4a.0402251613.3415c8ec@posting.google.com>...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pJCdnchns8GSY6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
The Republicans are stroking this issue, not softballing it.
That's because it's a certain winner and will guarantee Bush another
four years as president. Anytime the people get to have their voices
felt on these liberal social issues, the liberals and faggots always
lose. And thy know it better than anyone. Abortion is another example
of this. Put to the people, late term abortions would stop tomorrow.
(Cleopatra)
Yep. That's what you said the last time. It resulted in a Civil War.
Jefferson Davis
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0312140744.7ef3ef9a%40posting.google.com
Confederate Confederates Confederacy CSA
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+Confederate+OR+Confederates+OR+Confederacy+OR+CSA&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+Confederate+OR+Confederates+OR+Confederacy+OR+CSA&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+Confederate+OR+Confederates+OR+Confederacy+OR+CSA&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=Confederate%20Confederates%20Confederacy%20CSA&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 02:02:27 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sv2dnXE6itgad6HdRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
Bush is pretending that he wants to amend the constitution,
but in reality the plan is for the amendment to fail.
Why?
So they can then turn to the states -- "In desperation" -- to
call for a constitutional convention... supposedly just to
address the "issue" of gay marriage.
Everything is up for grabs in a constitutional convention.
Everything.
The one & only time the United States had a constitutional
convention was more than 200 years ago, and the result was
the complete destruction of the government we had at the time,
replaced by our present form of government.
So, what kind of huge, sweeping changes would likely be the
result of the neo-con constitutional convention?
They've already told you!
For example, Bush has been yapping a lot about "activist"
judges lately. Yes, it is ironic that a man appointed to the
Whitehouse by a 5-to-4 decision by "activist judges" would
have any complaints, but none the less he's been complaining.
Our present form of government has three branches: The
legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (President)
and the judicial branch (those "activist judges").
The powers where divided between the three branches so as
to keep any one branch from getting too strong.
This may have been the original intent. However recent history shows
that the people, informed by the free (and often reviled) press, are
they real check on government power. The Congress usually doesn't
worry too much about abuse of power unless they have a political stake
in doing so. Public outrage is the only thing that usually gets them
off their butts to even look at abuses of power.
So when politicians are always criticizing the press, suspect them.
They are mad because they don't like to be scrutinized. (They usually
do things like call the press names. Like "liberal media".)
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 03:07:06 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote
The powers where divided between the three branches so as
to keep any one branch from getting too strong.
This may have been the original intent. However recent history
shows that the people, informed by the free (and often reviled)
press, are they real check on government power.
That's not a factor here.
Bush has spent $1 million a year on focus groups & polling. He's
lept on the gay marriage "issue" because those focus groups and
that polling has lead him to believe he can stir up hate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 04:13:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:37:43 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
thought hard and said:
<snip>
Nut.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
26 Feb 2004 08:52:24 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
Nut.
You want to lick my... what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
27 Feb 2004 12:21:03 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6uidnWdl9KZmMqPd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
Nut.
You want to lick my... what?
Oooh, how very, very witty. Give yourself a pat on the back. You deserve it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
27 Feb 2004 08:21:57 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
Oooh, how very, very witty.
Keep trying, and someday someone may say those words to you.
It's a certainty. After all, you've already graduated from one-word
responses to one-liners!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Constitution (was Re: 2,000...) |
28 Feb 2004 05:54:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:21:57 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
thought hard and said:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
Oooh, how very, very witty.
Keep trying, and someday someone may say those words to you.
It's a certainty. After all, you've already graduated from one-word
responses to one-liners!
Brevity is indeed the soul of wit.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
