Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hmmm...apparently the Supreme Court is NOT superior to Congress or state legislatures and does not have the final say. Couple this with Hamilton's aforementioned acknowledgment that the Supreme Court lacks any enforcement mechanism whatsoever, the willingness of legislative and executive authorities to go along with their decisions is a key component, a cooperation that can be rescinded. Which brings us to your next blunder...

Ah, but you missed the part that shred your claims.

and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

Right there. When the legislature issues statutes that conflict with the constitution, the judiciary should follow the constitution, not the statute. That's my argument.

What about this do you disagree with? You're babble about the 'superiority' of the judiciary is your strawman. I, Hamilton, and jurists for generations have said that the USSC has the authority to overturn the laws of the legislature if those laws violate rights. Not based on the 'superiority' of the judiciary. But the superiority of the rights.

Did you get that part about how rights trump powers?

As for the courts relationship with the States, that changes radically when the 14th was adopted. Rendering any of the founders opinion on the matter moot, as the constitution changed long after they were dead. You might as well post quotes of the 'will of the founders' in regards to how senators are elected by the state legislatures. They aren't. An amendment changed that too.

Gonzalez Vs. Raich militates against your notion that the Supreme Court has the final say on an issue.

Like Federalist Paper 78, you've never read Gonzalas. You have no idea what its about. If you had, you'd have instantly recognized that the case had NOTHING to do with the federal courts authority to prevent the violation of rights by the State.

Its an interstate commerce case.

Where it was argued that the Federal government couldn't prosecute a man growing weed for his own personal use because State law allows it and the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the commerce clause. The USSC found that the feds did have jurisdiction.

And guess what? The Feds STILL have jurisdiction. How then does that case 'militates against your notion that the Supreme Court has the final say on an issue'?

I don't think 'militates' means what you think it means.

You assert that the state laws cannot violate the rights of federal citizens (whatever that means) meaning you missed the point thinking it was an issue of civil rights instead of states rights.

Whatever that means? What part did you not understand? The 'federal citizen' part? Or the 'rights' part?

Federal citizens is short hand for 'Citizen of the United States of America'. Just like federal constitution is short hand for 'Constitution of the United States of America'. Does that alleviate your confusion?

And if you don't understand what rights are....then you're clearly not equipped for this conversation.

You then go on to claim that "the courts never ruled that the states couldn't create laws that conflict with federal law" which undermines the point that the states weren't asking for permission to countermand federal law, they just did it.

Only if you confuse rights with laws. Which no one even remotely familiar with either would ever do. They aren't the same thing. Laws are rules. Rights are freedoms.

Let me give you yet another example as eventually one of these has to sink in. If the Federal government has passed laws that criminalize marijuana possession, a state decriminalizing it doesn't violate the rights of any citizen. As there's no 'right to have marijuana criminalized by the State'.

The State can have any laws it wishes that conflict with federal laws (like, say medicinal marijuana...which California still has, btw) within certain constitutional boundaries related to the respective powers of the Federal and State government. The States can't create laws that conflict with federal rights.

And by 'federal rights', I mean rights recognized by federal government as being protected by the federal constitution. And by 'federal constitution', I mean the Constitution of the United States of America. Just so I don't lose you again.

Rights are different from laws.

If however, the federal government has recognized abortion as a constitutional right, and a State creates a law that forbids abortion....then the federal government can step in and overturn the State law as it abrogates the rights of federal citizens.

Federal citizens are Citizens of the United States. Every citizen in this country is a citizen of the United States and the State in which they reside. Its known as concurrent jurisdiction. So every State citizen is also a Federal Citizen. And the federal government has the authority, under the 14th amendment, to protect the privileges and immunities of Federal Citizens.

And by 'Federal Citizen' I again mean 'Citizens of the United States'. Of America, if that wasn't clear.

So you see the difference between rights and laws now?

Had you not been fully persuaded that the Supreme Court is an ultimate authority, you might have perceived that yourself.

I've never claimed that the Supreme Court is the 'ultimate authority'. That's your strawman. I've said that rights trump powers. And if the States create laws that violate rights, that the federal judiciary can overturn those State laws using the authority granted the federal government by the 14th amendment.

Not based in the 'supremacy' of the judiciary. But the supremacy of the rights being protected.

The Constitutional crisis we're in right now is that in our entire history, the only time the Supreme Court set itself so adversarily against the people is when they upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. 19 years later, this country was in a state of civil war.

Yeah, there's not going to be any civil war over gay marriage or Obamacare. If you believe there is, you're delusional.

First off, most of the 'revolutionary' republicans are complete chickenshits. They will talk about civil war, but when pressed to start doing 'patriot shit' like fighting and dying, its always someone else that has to do the bleeding. Jeffersons don't win wars. Hamiltons do. And you've got boatloads of the former. And precious few of the latter.

Second, if ever some of that 'precious few' started killing our cops and soldiers in the 'name of the revolution', the rest of the citizenry would simply kill them like animals in the street. It wouldn't take a day. There are way more of us than there are of you. And we're better armed and organized.

And both the chickenshits and the 'precious few' know it. They don't have the numbers. Not by orders and orders of magnitude. So there will be no civil war.

If you believe otherwise, you're going to be very disappointed.

And now we have state marriage laws, popularly passed by the people via referendum and state legislatures all being overturned. The abolitionists of the early 19th century warned that war would result when winning hearts and minds was abandoned as a strategy and more obtuse, compulsory measures took its place. The same despair that plagued the people of Pennsylvania when their popularly passed law was overturned by federal power is setting on people today who believe, and rightly so, that the regulation of marriage is by 10th Amendment right, a state prerogative. Only in this case, as if to add fuel to the fire, the Supreme Court thinks to duck its constitutional duty to weigh in on a national controversy that's proving to be so divisive.

The whole question of the 'state prerogative' on marriage laws was asked and answered in 1967 with Loving V. Virginia. The interracial marriage bans in Virginia were overturned as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This in the height of the civil rights movement, this with the public supporting such bans by ludicrous margins.

And nothing. There was no civil war over interracial marriage. Majority support for interracial marriage bans lingered until the mid 90s. And still, nothing. There was your perfect storm, every ingredient you cited....and nothing.

In the case of gay marriage, there's no real question of whether or not the federal judiciary has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state marriage laws. Of course they do. Loving answered that question nearly 50 years ago. And the public already supports gay marriage by a wide margin. 12 to 19 points.

So why would the public have a 'civil war' over the implementation of something they overwhelmingly support? They obviously wouldn't. Your 'civil war' jabber is plainly stupid. Based in a comic misread of the national pulse, a laughably overestimation of folks who think like you do, and straight up ignorance of the legal questions being resolved.

You're about 50 years late to the party.

People will not long tolerate a government that with a waive of a magic wand undoes the will of the people over and over; especially the American people. The push back against Gonzalez Vs. Raich is just the beginning.

The problem is....the push back, isn't. The Feds still have federal jurisdiction. And the ruling never said that States couldn't create laws not in sync with federal laws. California allowed medicinal marijuana before Gonzales. It still allows it. So your 'pushback' against the USSC's authority is pretty much imaginary.

When states begin to secede you'll see history repeat itself as we are forced to the same decision of whether to let them peacefully egress or to use force to dragoon them back in.

Wow. You've really got this fantasy of yours mapped out. There's no significant support for secession. Nor any state government who is interested in trying it.

Your fantasy is well mapped out. Its that bridge from the wasteland of your imagination to the world the rest of live in where you run into problems. Conspiracy batshit does not a bridge to reality make.

And who knows. Maybe that's what you want. I bet you really enjoyed the fact that 600,000 people died because of thick headed tyrants like you.

Or, nobody dies as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

It's hard for me to argue against somebody so monstrously stupid he can't figure out that states legalizing marijuana even though it's still illegal under the federal government is pushing back against the Supreme Court AND the federal government. How do you miss such a simple point in logic.

And a civil war in this country wouldn't go down the way you narrate which indicates you have no grasp of history and how things play out in the real world. But that's another issue. I know already that when that day comes, you'll side with tyranny. I hope you get shot.

But your whole argument is a large scale strawman because it predicates on gay marriage being a "civil right" and so therefore the courts must (according to Hamilton) allow gay marriage and strike down any law that prohibits it. I'm sure that would have come as quite a shock to Hamilton who, being very progressive for his day, did not envision the Constitution as protecting deviant behaviors.

The Bill of Rights was a list of 10 amendments grafted into the original document each as a reaction to abuses experienced at the hands of the British. Even defunct amendments like the 3rd demonstrate that there were specific issue addressed. This is important because it lays down some important groundwork for the 14th Amendment which too was designed to address very specific problems. Just like the "general welfare" clause, the "privileges and immunities" clause cannot be defined beyond the scope of the specifically delegated, enumerated powers the Constitution grants to the federal government, none of which include the regulation of marriage.

State marriage laws allow that any person can marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex. This applies regardless of race, gender, previous condition of servitude, religion, or even sexual orientation. To say that the 14th Amendment guarantees every person the right to marry is a stretch because, as I mentioned earlier, it can't be interpreted in such manner as to grant additional powers to the federal government. But to say it guarantees that everyone who can marry can additionally marry whoever they want is untethered from anything remotely within the letter or the spirit of the Constitution in its design to limit the role of government. That means polygamy, marrying within family, ANYTHING goes. This is a flight of fancy to put it in the kindest terms.

So no, there is no Constitutional "right" to marry whoever one wants nor could there be without another amendment with specific language to that end. Therefore the courts are not siding with the Constitution and your whole argument falls like a house built on shifting sand.

And if you want to convince me you're smarter than me, you've succeeded. Not many are.

But that doesn't make you right.

 

[Skylar]

And they suffer depression at a greater rate, commit suicide more often, do more drugs, and live a risky, licentious lifestyle that increases their chances of contracting STD's.

CDC - Mental Health - Gay and Bisexual Men s Health

Oh yeah!

So much for what they do to themselves - in my opinion the only good faggot is a dead faggot, or one who seeks help - and yes there is help. Homosexuality - like most mental diseases is treatable - it's curable - just like drug addiction there is therapy that can - in many cases "cure" homosexuality. HOWEVER -the queer militia works feverishly to suppress it.

I don't know if homosexual feelings can ever be completely cured, but homosexuals have learned to overcome them and even get married (real marriage) and have thriving families. It can be done. But these days we're prone to accomodate people's mental illnesses instead of treating them. This started with homosexuality, but now has progressed to gender identity disorder. These people need serious psychiatric intervention and we we won't even admit they have a disease!

If ever I were to prescribe a strategy by which a society is overtaken by madness, I would suggest they no longer recognize madness and instead embrace it, celebrate it, and protect it by law.

Yep... and it will only get worse. We're only one more socialist majority away from the legalization of pedophilia.

And what come after that is unknown to me, but we can rest assured that it is some sick shit that would likely run Caligula out of the room.

I've been warning about this for decades. It's not just a possibility, but a grave certainty if we remain on this course. Pederasty has overtaken civilizations in the past, most notably, Greko/Roman culture, and that's how depravity works, like water, always seeking lower ground. Many gay men have a range of attractions already that includes teenage boys...or even younger. It's one of the deep, dark secrets that doesn't come up at the annual LGBT action conference because nobody wants to admit that the seeds of pederasty have already been sown, and cultivated in this morally corrupt culture, will eventually sprout.

Right now gays are saying "consenting adults only!" But honestly.....how long will that charade last?

This 7th-grade photo of Jesse Dirkhising is from the Lincoln (Middle) School yearbook in 1999 — the same year he was killed after being sadistically raped and sodomized by homosexuals (and lovers) David Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown. Dirkhising’s murder was largely ignored by cultural elites — while homosexual Matthew Shepard’s murder was given extraordinary, worldwide media coverage (based on a false “hate crime” narrative).

13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover,Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother,Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.
Homosexual Pedophilia Pederasty Americans for Truth

Richard Allen "Rick" Davis (born June 2, 1954) is an American convicted murderer, whose criminal record fueled support for passage of California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. He is currently on death row in Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison, California. He was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and four special circumstances (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and a lewd act on a child) of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Klaas was abducted October 1, 1993, from her Petaluma, California, home.

Clearly abuse and murder isn't an exclusively homosexual act. Or does the 'truth' of what some straights are capable of disturb you?

 

[GreenBean]

The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple Filthy Faggots accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial. Gay Conn. couple accused of rape face trial - NY Daily News

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So much for what they do to themselves - in my opinion the only good faggot is a dead faggot, or one who seeks help - and yes there is help. Homosexuality - like most mental diseases is treatable - it's curable - just like drug addiction there is therapy that can - in many cases "cure" homosexuality. HOWEVER -the queer militia works feverishly to suppress it.

I don't know if homosexual feelings can ever be completely cured, but homosexuals have learned to overcome them and even get married (real marriage) and have thriving families. It can be done. But these days we're prone to accomodate people's mental illnesses instead of treating them. This started with homosexuality, but now has progressed to gender identity disorder. These people need serious psychiatric intervention and we we won't even admit they have a disease!

If ever I were to prescribe a strategy by which a society is overtaken by madness, I would suggest they no longer recognize madness and instead embrace it, celebrate it, and protect it by law.

Yep... and it will only get worse. We're only one more socialist majority away from the legalization of pedophilia.

And what come after that is unknown to me, but we can rest assured that it is some sick shit that would likely run Caligula out of the room.

I've been warning about this for decades. It's not just a possibility, but a grave certainty if we remain on this course. Pederasty has overtaken civilizations in the past, most notably, Greko/Roman culture, and that's how depravity works, like water, always seeking lower ground. Many gay men have a range of attractions already that includes teenage boys...or even younger. It's one of the deep, dark secrets that doesn't come up at the annual LGBT action conference because nobody wants to admit that the seeds of pederasty have already been sown, and cultivated in this morally corrupt culture, will eventually sprout.

Right now gays are saying "consenting adults only!" But honestly.....how long will that charade last?

This 7th-grade photo of Jesse Dirkhising is from the Lincoln (Middle) School yearbook in 1999 — the same year he was killed after being sadistically raped and sodomized by homosexuals (and lovers) David Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown. Dirkhising’s murder was largely ignored by cultural elites — while homosexual Matthew Shepard’s murder was given extraordinary, worldwide media coverage (based on a false “hate crime” narrative).

13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover,Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother,Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.
Homosexual Pedophilia Pederasty Americans for Truth

Richard Allen "Rick" Davis (born June 2, 1954) is an American convicted murderer, whose criminal record fueled support for passage of California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. He is currently on death row in Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison, California. He was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and four special circumstances (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and a lewd act on a child) of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Klaas was abducted October 1, 1993, from her Petaluma, California, home.

Clearly abuse and murder isn't an exclusively homosexual act. Or does the 'truth' of what some straights are capable of disturb you?

We're not the ones in denial. It's the Left that rages like treed mountain lion whenever the facts are cited about homosexuals and pederasty. It makes me wonder how you people are so different than any other of the evil people who conceal sexual child abuse, silence all complaints, and protect the predator. You are indeed the child molester's wife.

 

[GreenBean]

So much for what they do to themselves - in my opinion the only good faggot is a dead faggot, or one who seeks help - and yes there is help. Homosexuality - like most mental diseases is treatable - it's curable - just like drug addiction there is therapy that can - in many cases "cure" homosexuality. HOWEVER -the queer militia works feverishly to suppress it.

I don't know if homosexual feelings can ever be completely cured, but homosexuals have learned to overcome them and even get married (real marriage) and have thriving families. It can be done. But these days we're prone to accomodate people's mental illnesses instead of treating them. This started with homosexuality, but now has progressed to gender identity disorder. These people need serious psychiatric intervention and we we won't even admit they have a disease!

If ever I were to prescribe a strategy by which a society is overtaken by madness, I would suggest they no longer recognize madness and instead embrace it, celebrate it, and protect it by law.

Yep... and it will only get worse. We're only one more socialist majority away from the legalization of pedophilia.

And what come after that is unknown to me, but we can rest assured that it is some sick shit that would likely run Caligula out of the room.

I've been warning about this for decades. It's not just a possibility, but a grave certainty if we remain on this course. Pederasty has overtaken civilizations in the past, most notably, Greko/Roman culture, and that's how depravity works, like water, always seeking lower ground. Many gay men have a range of attractions already that includes teenage boys...or even younger. It's one of the deep, dark secrets that doesn't come up at the annual LGBT action conference because nobody wants to admit that the seeds of pederasty have already been sown, and cultivated in this morally corrupt culture, will eventually sprout.

Right now gays are saying "consenting adults only!" But honestly.....how long will that charade last?

This 7th-grade photo of Jesse Dirkhising is from the Lincoln (Middle) School yearbook in 1999 — the same year he was killed after being sadistically raped and sodomized by homosexuals (and lovers) David Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown. Dirkhising’s murder was largely ignored by cultural elites — while homosexual Matthew Shepard’s murder was given extraordinary, worldwide media coverage (based on a false “hate crime” narrative).

13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover,Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother,Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.
Homosexual Pedophilia Pederasty Americans for Truth

Richard Allen "Rick" Davis (born June 2, 1954) is an American convicted murderer, whose criminal record fueled support for passage of California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. He is currently on death row in Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison, California. He was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and four special circumstances (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and a lewd act on a child) of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Klaas was abducted October 1, 1993, from her Petaluma, California, home.

Clearly abuse and murder isn't an exclusively homosexual act. Or does the 'truth' of what some straights are capable of disturb you?

Are you mathematically challenged ?? Are you capable of comprehending the concepts of percentages and per capita ? It doesn't appear so cummy bear.

Let me run this by you one more time on the vague possibility that something might actually sink into your intellectually challenged mind.

Gays comprise 2 - 3 % of the population

Heterosexuals comprise roughly 95% of the population

Gays are responsible for 1/3 of all sex crimes against Children- that's approximately 30 - 35%

So when 2 -3% are responsible for 30 - 35% that mean that on a per capita basis Faggots are the most prolific Child Molesters in the Human Race.

 

[GreenBean]

IN 2010, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ran a glowing article, “Two Dads Are Better than One,” about two homosexual men living in Australia who had adopted a baby boy from Russia. The blogger Wintery Knight has the full text of the article, which has allegedly been pulled from the Internet. The piece is similar to countless others about the wonders of homosexual “parenthood” and the deep desire to become “fathers.” ..................... Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation.’’ The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network............

One respondent to the article actually wrote : Why should they be deprived of the right to love a child in their own way?
The Thinking Housewife rsaquo Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Skylar is actually very intelligent. He felt the need to bury me in his astonishing intellectual prowess. So the numbers you post aren't lost on him. He just doesn't care that homosexuals represent a higher per capita risk to children than heterosexuals. Intelligence is of little value when one sequesters their intellect to only entertain those facts that fit within their philosophical narrative.

For this reason, some of the most educated people on the planet are actually pretty stupid.

 

[GreenBean]

Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia

Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia Wintery Knight

 

[GreenBean]

Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting

Gay Adoption Horror Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork

I could continue posting cases for hours - but you get the idea I believe.......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy,
Frank Lombard, was recently arrested by the FBI and charged
with offering up his adopted 5-year-old African American son
for sex to an undercover cop. Lombard admitted to molesting his
own adopted son to the undercover officer in an online chat room
under the user name "Perv Dad for Fun". He invited the under
cover officer to travel to North Carolina to rape his already-molested
adopted son. Lombard faces 20 years in prison if convicted but is
not eligible for the death penalty.

Lombard bragged to the detective that “the abuse of the child was
easier when the child was too young to talk or know what was
happening, but that he had drugged the child with Benadryl
during the molestation,” according to the detective’s affidavit.

Lombard is gay and adopted the two children together with his
partner.

Gay Adoption Horror Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

 

[GreenBean]

Skylar is actually very intelligent. He felt the need to bury me in his astonishing intellectual prowess. So the numbers you post aren't lost on him. He just doesn't care that homosexuals represent a higher per capita risk to children than heterosexuals. Intelligence is of little value when one sequesters their intellect to only entertain those facts that fit within their philosophical narrative.

For this reason, some of the most educated people on the planet are actually pretty stupid.

Cherry Picking ....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay Couple Who Adopted 9 Children Now Facing Trial After Molestation Charges
You may remember the case of George Harasz and Douglas Worth being arrested in 2011 on charges of molestation. The couple adopted 9 boys starting in 2000 and we're arrested in 2011.

After initially withdrawing from a plea agreement, they are now facing new allegations of molestation which are more serious than the original charges. All of which were brought up by the alleged victims right before Harasz and Wirth are set to go to trial. Details here.

Gay Couple Who Adopted 9 Children Now Facing Trial After Molestation Charges page 1

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"Let's pretend we don't have a problem" said every enabler of sexual child abuse in history. I just wonder if the media will give gays buggering children as much attention as they gave the Catholic Church.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So many fecal faggot fiends & fel friends in this thread.

 

[Judicial review]

Queers.

 

[Skylar]

It's hard for me to argue against somebody so monstrously stupid he can't figure out that states legalizing marijuana even though it's still illegal under the federal government is pushing back against the Supreme Court AND the federal government. How do you miss such a simple point in logic.

\

Almost everyone is completely unaware of Gonzales. And cares less. If they're voting for pot laws, its because they want to smoke pot or let other people smoke pot.

Not because they're 'pushing back against a federal court ruling' or whatever silly nonsense you've made up. You keep taking your fantasies, personal obsessions, religious beliefs and rather extreme political positions and awkwardly projecting them onto millions of people that have no idea what you're talking about.

Let alone agree with you.

Your 'push back' isn't. You're not even aware of the issues ruled upon in Gonzales, or what the USSC's ruling entailed. As a state legalizing pot laws doesn't contradict the USSC's ruling in the slightest. Why? Because the USSC didn't rule against a state legalizing pot in Gonzales. Which you'd know if you'd ever read the ruling.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And a civil war in this country wouldn't go down the way you narrate which indicates you have no grasp of history and how things play out in the real world. But that's another issue. I know already that when that day comes, you'll side with tyranny. I hope you get shot.

You had everything you said would produce a civil war in Loving, your perfect storm. The States being overruled by the feds. The will of the people overruled. Strong support for the states and the bans. The bans being wildly popular.

And history gave you your answer: Nothing happened.

You are obsessed with gay marriage. You are obsessed with Obamacare. Most people genuinely don't give a shit either way, with tepid support or opposition.They've got their own lives to live, mortgages to pay, kids to raise. And they're certainly not going to fighting a civil war over your personal obsessions and your religious beliefs.

For crying out loud, even you won't do that. And they're your obsessions and beliefs. Making this Gunz and Ammo civil war nonsense just another comic fantasy that has little if nothing to do with reality.

But your whole argument is a large scale strawman because it predicates on gay marriage being a "civil right" and so therefore the courts must (according to Hamilton) allow gay marriage and strike down any law that prohibits it. I'm sure that would have come as quite a shock to Hamilton who, being very progressive for his day, did not envision the Constitution as protecting deviant behaviors.

Interracial marriage and women voting would have shocked Hamilton. A black president would have shocked Hamilton. The federal judiciary following the constitution when legislatures violate it wouldn't.

The Bill of Rights was a list of 10 amendments grafted into the original document each as a reaction to abuses experienced at the hands of the British. Even defunct amendments like the 3rd demonstrate that there were specific issue addressed. This is important because it lays down some important groundwork for the 14th Amendment which too was designed to address very specific problems.

The 14th amendment isn't limited to slavery, anymore than right to the Free Press is limited to the a physical printing press. The 14th amendment is limited to what is says. And what is says is this:

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.

From Section 1, 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

If a State does such things, the feds can step in and prevent it.

Just like the "general welfare" clause, the "privileges and immunities" clause cannot be defined beyond the scope of the specifically delegated, enumerated powers the Constitution grants to the federal government, none of which include the regulation of marriage.

Ah, but the 14th amendment says otherwise. If a State is violating the privileges and immunities of the Federal citizens or not applying their law equally, the federal government can step in.

And the federal government has already recognized that marriage is a fundamental right. Rights trump powers. A state doesn't have the power to trump individual rights, no matter how much you might wish they could.

And this legal issue was resolved something like 50 years ago.

State marriage laws allow that any person can marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex. This applies regardless of race, gender, previous condition of servitude, religion, or even sexual orientation.

And when there were interracial marriage laws, they applied 'equally' to whites and blacks. The problem was that the law itself was a violation of equal protection, as it put a constitutionally unjustified burden on the right of those who wanted to marry interracial. For no particular reason. The State judges cited the same religious 'appeal to authority' that you do in trying to justify such bans:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile

Sound familiar? It didn't work well then either.

If you're going to deny someone a fundamental right, you're going to need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have none. No state interest is served in their arbitrary restrictions against same sex marriage. There's no rational reason for them. And the courts have already found that these bans do genuine harm to both the same sex couple trying to marry and their children.

Which is why the federal court rulings have overturned gay marriage bans by an almost ludicrous degree. And gay marriage is legal in 36 of 50 States.

To say that the 14th Amendment guarantees every person the right to marry is a stretch because, as I mentioned earlier, it can't be interpreted in such manner as to grant additional powers to the federal government.

Its not a 'new' power of the federal government. The right to marry is generations old. And the federal government has EVERY power to protect the rights of its citizens from state violation.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrates so elegantly. Rights trump powers. You, like many conservatives, hate this idea. And yet the States still can't violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Not when they're marrying, not when they're bearing arms, not when they're having abortions. The rights of the individual trump state powers.

If the States want to intrude on individual rights, they need a really good reason and a compelling state interest. Neither exist with gay marriage bans.

But to say it guarantees that everyone who can marry can additionally marry whoever they want is untethered from anything remotely within the letter or the spirit of the Constitution in its design to limit the role of government. That means polygamy, marrying within family, ANYTHING goes. This is a flight of fancy to put it in the kindest terms.

The only one saying 'anyone' and 'anything' is you. The question the federal courts are addressing is specific: Do gays and lesbians have the right to enter into same sex marriages.

And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The States cannot abrogate a constitutional right held by federal citizens. And in 6 appeals districts, same sex marriage is such a right

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They never became faggots to me until they started getting pushy.

When you look on the internet, you find many articles about how Exxon Mobile is anti gay. This is regardless of the fact that Exxon Mobile doesn't discriminate against gays and offers same sex employees. So why are they still anti gay?

Because they refuse to cave in to LGBT's demand to adopt some radical policies requiring affirmative action for gays to move up in management and mandatory "counseling" for any employee that disagrees with the gay lifestyle or says anything anti gay. This goes way beyond just not discriminating.

LGBT are a bunch of faggots....and I actually have gay friends who agree with that.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Remember folks, this is natural:
Urban Dictionary poop doodle

poop doodle
penial discharge during morning urination of fecal matter after having a nasty faggot night of unprotected faggot sex.
wee hours of the morning at the commode

faggot 1: ahh...shit that stings!
faggot 2: what is it cuddle bums?
faggot 1: ahh....a fucking poop doodle!!!!!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Remember folks, this is natural:
Urban Dictionary poop doodle

poop doodle
penial discharge during morning urination of fecal matter after having a nasty faggot night of unprotected faggot sex.
wee hours of the morning at the commode

faggot 1: ahh...shit that stings!
faggot 2: what is it cuddle bums?
faggot 1: ahh....a fucking poop doodle!!!!!