Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So a homosexual activist judge told the voters of California that their vote does not mean a thing. How surprising
hey, go read the 14th amendment. then come back and lets have an intelligible debate.
nah screw it....the 14th amendement states:
The XIV Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In bold, the plaintiff proved with out a doubt in Court that marriage is a right to be guarenteed, check. Then because it's a right, it was to NOT be abridged upon. So, a billion trillion people could have voted it down, and that still would mean squat. No America citizen has the perogative to vote on any one else's Right. Rights are NOT to be voted upon. They are eternal and enshrined in the Constitution and laws set therein and in the many states.
Way to another idiot judge who destroys the will of the people of California and institutes his own biased opinion. I guess it has nothing to do with the fact he is a sodomite as well. Real legit. If anyone else needs anything more to see that the justice system in this country is extremely flawed and they people running it care nothing for the PEOPLE anymore then I don't know what will. They complain when citizens take the law into our own hands yet its just peachy when they do it. Day of the rope comes soon liberal judges!
Just who are you to think that you have the right to push your particular preferences onto anyone?
The peoples will? your will?
Can't you just be happy that some people are in love and wanting to get married and live their life without instilling their beliefs to you?
What the heck is this "day of the rope liberal judges" stuff?
Obviously you are a far far right winger who wants Government out of our lives but, conveniently wants to control those who beliefs differ from yours.
When you say things like the "citizens taking the law into their own hands" I don't mind tellin ya that it's people like you that I find dangerous & appalling!
It's shouldn't be anybody's darn business what people choose to do.
Get out of somebody else's bedroom!
The Country you are looking for is not the United States. You want to oppress freedom and keep sexuality according to your standards. The countries that agree with you are IRAN EGYPT etc etc.
America Land of the Free Home of the Brave......
We all have prejudice in our lives but those of you who believe that freedom attaches to your key belt and stops applying to those people who make you feel uncomfortable do not belong here in this country.
hey, go read the 14th amendment. then come back and lets have an intelligible debate.
nah screw it....the 14th amendement states:
The XIV Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In bold, the plaintiff proved with out a doubt in Court that marriage is a right to be guarenteed, check. Then because it's a right, it was to NOT be abridged upon. So, a billion trillion people could have voted it down, and that still would mean squat. No America citizen has the perogative to vote on any one else's Right. Rights are NOT to be voted upon. They are eternal and enshrined in the Constitution and laws set therein and in the many states.
Was there a section addressing perversions and behavior in there because that is all homosexuals are about. They want special laws and priviledges because of their abnormal behaviors.
Was there a section addressing perversions and behavior in there because that is all homosexuals are about. They want special laws and priviledges because of their abnormal behaviors.
Glad someone on this forum actually has appointed himself as the "decider" on what is perverse and what is not.
Was there a section addressing perversions and behavior in there because that is all homosexuals are about. They want special laws and priviledges because of their abnormal behaviors.
It's only considered "perversions" by people who haven't done a lick of research into the subject.
Anyone with any credibility on the subject would say that homosexuality (while not the "social norm") is anything but. That homosexuality is perfectly okay mentally.
Was there a section addressing perversions and behavior in there because that is all homosexuals are about. They want special laws and priviledges because of their abnormal behaviors.
ahhh, bigotry and ignorance...priceless!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
