Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It all still falls under the interpretations of the documents, the law and the cases at hand, and all cases are not the same, even though some try and tie them into the others for strengthening their positions in these ways. However, they still have to get a judge to buy into it, and these days there seems to be no end to activist judges who rule with emotion instead of by proper interpretation of the law or the laws in which they were written, and also as they were written in the spirit for which they were written in at different times in which we all know of. Now some things were just plain wrong back in the day, but there were many a thing that was just plain right as well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, even if it isn't right for them to be laid upon the table as equal to the others that are also there, but that is how it is being done now isn't it ?A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?
No, Federal judges are following the Constitution and its case law.
And Federal judges wouldnt need to get involved if the states themselves would only start following the Constitution and its case law.
When the states seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, however, as in this case with gay Americans, citizens have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts; and when judges in those courts review the laws and find them to be offensive to the Founding Document, they invalidate them accordingly.
A smart lawyer or attorney could stand just about anything on it's head these days, and these weak activist federal judges will just about believe or buy into anything these days.
The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?
A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!
Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States
Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentuckys laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.
The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?
Perhaps he's bisexual, which would STILL make him a member of your community . LOL all too easy
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?
Well the church of LGBT calls these people "in the closet". I KNOW you are familiar with that term.
It's like when a butch lesbian is looking like, talking like and acting like a man. The gal that's "attracted to her" is actually suspect of closeted heterosexuality.
Undoubtedly being married was simply a cover for the man in his life, as I bet his wife was oblivious to the man's activities while he was married to her or do you think that she may have known also what he did to those boy's ? I wouldn't think that she did.The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
All of Sandusky's victims were male children. Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:
Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?
Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?It all still falls under the interpretations of the documents, the law and the cases at hand, and all cases are not the same, even though some try and tie them into the others for strengthening their positions in these ways. However, they still have to get a judge to buy into it, and these days there seems to be no end to activist judges who rule with emotion instead of by proper interpretation of the law or the laws in which they were written, and also as they were written in the spirit for which they were written in at different times in which we all know of. Now some things were just plain wrong back in the day, but there were many a thing that was just plain right as well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, even if it isn't right for them to be laid upon the table as equal to the others that are also there, but that is how it is being done now isn't it ?No, Federal judges are following the Constitution and its case law.
And Federal judges wouldnt need to get involved if the states themselves would only start following the Constitution and its case law.
When the states seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, however, as in this case with gay Americans, citizens have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts; and when judges in those courts review the laws and find them to be offensive to the Founding Document, they invalidate them accordingly.
A smart lawyer or attorney could stand just about anything on it's head these days, and these weak activist federal judges will just about believe or buy into anything these days.
Judges striking down anti gay laws are following the Constitution. There is no "activism".
A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?
The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
Completely incorrect
A constitutional amendment could remove any protections you enjoy. It wouldn't be easy, nor should it be, but if the electorate en masse decided to repeal any protections you enjoy, they could do so.
Well the church of LGBT calls these people "in the closet". I KNOW you are familiar with that term.
It's like when a butch lesbian is looking like, talking like and acting like a man. The gal that's "attracted to her" is actually suspect of closeted heterosexuality.
A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!
Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States
Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentuckys laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.
The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?
The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
yes they can
see prop 8
A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?
The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
yes they can
see prop 8
Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.
yes they can
see prop 8
They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.
Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?It all still falls under the interpretations of the documents, the law and the cases at hand, and all cases are not the same, even though some try and tie them into the others for strengthening their positions in these ways. However, they still have to get a judge to buy into it, and these days there seems to be no end to activist judges who rule with emotion instead of by proper interpretation of the law or the laws in which they were written, and also as they were written in the spirit for which they were written in at different times in which we all know of. Now some things were just plain wrong back in the day, but there were many a thing that was just plain right as well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, even if it isn't right for them to be laid upon the table as equal to the others that are also there, but that is how it is being done now isn't it ?
A smart lawyer or attorney could stand just about anything on it's head these days, and these weak activist federal judges will just about believe or buy into anything these days.
Judges striking down anti gay laws are following the Constitution. There is no "activism".
Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.yes they can
see prop 8
They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.
I guess it all falls upon this then, as to the determining of what ones unique civil liberties are, and what they are considered to be completely in each unique case that is brought. If a judge so deems that they have met the standard in which those rights would then apply to them in a case, then arguments and appeals are and should be welcome as well afterwards. Now as to whether or not all equally can meet the standards in which the rights were meant to be understood as or are given when such things were documented, created or passed, and for which are to be applied to or not to be applied to upon review, otherwise whether it be by a panel of judges or a judge that would review such things as a new case to be brought, then it is any ones guess at that point as to what might or might not happen.Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?Judges striking down anti gay laws are following the Constitution. There is no "activism".
No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.
When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
