 |
|

05-15-2008, 04:37 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 3,640
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
What will keep this same court from ruling a State Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional?
This will end up in the USSC.
|
Doubt it. Doubt they would hear it if it got that far. California will now join Mass. as a state where same sex marriages are legal.
__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.
|

05-15-2008, 04:52 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 5,503
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
God but you're stupid. Marriage is not just a religious ceremoney, its also a civil ceremoney, and not coved by the first amendment. Get a grip you little religious nazi.
|
I could careless about religion, why make those comments?
Of course, I'm very stupid but it appears marriage was conceived by the Catholic church about 1,500 years ago. I know, there are many sources for the history of marriage and many are skewed now to fit the Homo's agenda.
I never said that marriage was covered by the first amendment. I will say I think Marriage is a religious ceremony and this violates the separation of church and state that does NOT exist in the first amendment.
If Homos are going to use the first amendment to attack Christianity, why can't it be used to attack the Homo's access to marriage?
Can I expect an intelligent reply?
__________________
Victory in Iraq
|

05-15-2008, 04:55 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The deep end of the gene pool
Posts: 1,494
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanbreeze
I am conservative Republican and I am would vote FOR gay marriages in any state that I live in. They are a committed couple and deserve all the financial and legal benefits that straight married couples receive.
|
I wouldn't object to it as a legal and binding contract between two homos ...... if they would call it something other than marriage.... I'd suggest ..... "homo-ocity" ..... but it isn't marriage in any traditional or historical sense of the word.... and.... they'd have to shut the fuck up ..... forever...
__________________
CHECK THIS OUT ..... graybeard's "tribute" to Humble Lasher -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwFjt2x9Rws ...and another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECK3Ed1CN0
Political Correctness defined :
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
|

05-15-2008, 05:05 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 5,503
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Doubt it. Doubt they would hear it if it got that far. California will now join Mass. as a state where same sex marriages are legal.
|
I'm not sure what you base your doubts on but a panel of Judges throwing out a decision made by the voters of California sounds like a good case for the USSC to intervene and restore Democracy.
This is ridiculous 
__________________
Victory in Iraq
|

05-15-2008, 05:11 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,343
|
|
You are ridiculous, bitch-troll.
Each and every time you post.
|

05-15-2008, 05:16 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 3,640
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
I could careless about religion, why make those comments?
Of course, I'm very stupid but it appears marriage was conceived by the Catholic church about 1,500 years ago. I know, there are many sources for the history of marriage and many are skewed now to fit the Homo's agenda.
I never said that marriage was covered by the first amendment. I will say I think Marriage is a religious ceremony and this violates the separation of church and state that does NOT exist in the first amendment.
If Homos are going to use the first amendment to attack Christianity, why can't it be used to attack the Homo's access to marriage?
Can I expect an intelligent reply?
|
You interpretation of the first amendment is also faulty. There is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. Thats a common misconception by a large number of people who can't comprehend the English language. There is only a prohibition of a government sponsored/mandated religion. That does not even come close to a proclamation of separation.
__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.
|

05-15-2008, 05:18 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 3,640
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
I'm not sure what you base your doubts on but a panel of Judges throwing out a decision made by the voters of California sounds like a good case for the USSC to intervene and restore Democracy.
This is ridiculous 
|
First of all you do not even live in a democracy, its a Republic. Now go look up the difference. Maybe you will understand.
__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.
|

05-15-2008, 05:21 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,030
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
First of all you do not even live in a democracy, its a Republic. Now go look up the difference. Maybe you will understand.
|
Uhm, the US is a republic, CA is a democracy. Voter initiatives have the force of law without the need for representatives agreeing with it.
|

05-15-2008, 05:35 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 5,503
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
You interpretation of the first amendment is also faulty. There is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. Thats a common misconception by a large number of people who can't comprehend the English language. There is only a prohibition of a government sponsored/mandated religion. That does not even come close to a proclamation of separation.
|
Again, you are wrong. This is what I typed in the previous post I think Marriage is a religious ceremony and this violates the separation of church and state that does "NOT" exist in the first amendment.
My point is, Homos use the first amendment to attack Christianity or as you call it "Govt. sponsored religion" hence, it can be used to ban Gay marriage based on the appearance that marriage is a "Govt. sponsored mandated religious ceremony" 
__________________
Victory in Iraq
|

05-15-2008, 05:40 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 3,640
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
Uhm, the US is a republic, CA is a democracy. Voter initiatives have the force of law without the need for representatives agreeing with it.
|
Not when they are deemed to be contrary to the state constitution. It was not state representatives who over turned this. The judges are doing their job. If the people want to place an amendment into the state constitution they are free to do so. But until then.......
__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|