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.
You know Kasich is gay right?Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.
I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.
As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.
You know Kasich is gay right?Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.
I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.
As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.
No pics didn't happen.You know Kasich is gay right?Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.
I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.
As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.
So is Hillary, just think, the first lesbian president-------ain't that a wonderful thought?
What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?Back to the playground for you, huh?
I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.
The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.
Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.
And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.
And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.
So voters changed our Constitution.
And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
Wrong.Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.
I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.
As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.
Immaterial question from a far right reactionary drone. Try again.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.
Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.
And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.
And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.
So voters changed our Constitution.
And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?
Back to the playground for you, huh?
I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.
The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.
Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.
And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.
And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.
So voters changed our Constitution.
And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.
Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.
A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.
Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.
And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.
And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.
So voters changed our Constitution.
And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
An immaterial question. Move along.Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.
Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.
Name someone you would not be able to marry if you were gay that you can't now or vice versa
A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.
Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.
A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.
Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.
When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.
But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron
A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.
Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.
When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.
But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron
Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.
A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?
In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.
Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.
When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.
But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron
Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.
You know you're on the internet
Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Negative rights are the right to be left alone. Free speech, protection from someone breaking into your house, ...
Positive rights are the so called right to demand things from others. The right to housing, healthcare, paper saying you are married to someone, the right to force someone to bake you a cake...
Negative rights are applied to all equally, we all have the right to be left alone from others.
Not so with positive rights. Positive rights infringe on the rights of others, by definition. So a system of positive rights is a system where one group of citizens screw another. You know, like the Democratic party constantly demands
What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.
Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.
And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.
And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.
So voters changed our Constitution.
And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.
Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy
It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.
Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
OMG! " we all have the right to be left alone from others."
So the kid who doesn't want to attend school has the right to be left alone?
And babies do not have the right to proper housing or healthcare?
