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.
Go back and read the transcripts from some of those legislative debates about these anti gay marriage laws. The malice is quite evident.
That is irrelevant to the point I made. I said you calling people hostile is funny because you are hostile. Saying someone else is hostile doesn't change that.
You really can't engage in a conversation beyond about a 5th grade level.
Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...
Is it time to go to work yet? You know, work, what you call running to the mailbox for your government check...
You really can't engage in a conversation beyond about a 5th grade level.
You are of the opinion that anti gay laws are not based on hostility and animus towards gays
Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...
Is it time to go to work yet? You know, work, what you call running to the mailbox for your government check...
No, not for another few minutes. Kids lunches are already made, but your concern is touching, truly. Government checks are directed deposited and they come on the 1st of the month, by the way. I'll be heading off soon to earn my other government direct deposit...serving the voters of my county.
So you don't think serving in the military for 20 years was work and that I earned that check?
What point were you referring to? You are of the opinion that anti gay laws are not based on hostility and animus towards gays. I disagree and I provide the reason I disagree...because I remember the legislative sessions debating these laws.
Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental."Let the States Decide..."
The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.
Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.
Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.
The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'
Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.
Personal matters have always been a state government 'province'?
You mean like an individual's right to own a gun?
Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental."Let the States Decide..."
The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.
Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.
Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.
The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'
Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.
Personal matters have always been a state government 'province'?
You mean like an individual's right to own a gun?
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.
There are no "anti gay marriage" laws. Any more than they are anti incestuous marriage laws. Or anti polygamy laws. There are laws that define marriage.Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.
You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.
Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.
Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.
Read the opinion.Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental."Let the States Decide..."
The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.
Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.
Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.
The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'
Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.
Personal matters have always been a state government 'province'?
You mean like an individual's right to own a gun?
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.
Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?
The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?
That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?
That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.
And if the Federal government wants to it can either:
a) file suit against Colorado, as it did against Arizona or
b) send DEA agents in and arrest pot growers.
Alabama will no more prevent gay marriages than it prevented mixed race marriages when the Court told the people of Alabama that their state laws are subject to the Constitution also.
That's true if you reject the Heisenberg principle and instead adopt Hoyle's Rule.The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?
That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.
There is no federal law for States to be repugnant to; we have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs Clause, which would constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
Individual Liberty?And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?
You are confusing Faith and the subjective and Individual value of morals, with socialism; why am I not surprised, person on the right?There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
Which is dominant? the commerce clause or the 1st amendment when it comes to lifestyles vs religion?
Forget it. You get a word salad of terms and concepts vaguely related to the question.There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
Which is dominant? the commerce clause or the 1st amendment when it comes to lifestyles vs religion?
Read the opinion.Yes idiot. The 2A originally applied only to the federal gov't. Many state governments also had similar rights in their own state costitutions.What an abysmally ignorant comment. This is truly monumental."Let the States Decide..."
The ignorance and idiocy of this is considerable.
Who, exactly, is supposed to 'let' the states 'decide,' and by what authority.
Is the OP advocating that citizens be denied their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief from the overreach of state governments. Does the OP expect Federal judges to ignore Articles III and VI of the Constitution and refuse to review the suits for merit or hear arguments in the cases brought by the people against their state governments.
The ridiculous premise of the OP's thread seems to suggest that somewhere in the Constitution and its case law there exists the 'authorization' allowing the states to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens residing in the states and subject those citizens' civil rights to 'majority rule.'
Needless to say no such 'authorization' exists in the Constitution, and likely exists only in the OP's head.
Marriage and matters of personal status have been the province of state governments forever. See Amendment X. Ginning up spurious claims about denial of rights does not contradict that in any way.
You would give power to unelected judges and take it fro the people. That is tyranny.
Personal matters have always been a state government 'province'?
You mean like an individual's right to own a gun?
That's your lesson for today. I take PayPal.
Really? So how was it possible for the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v Chicago?
The Court decided that the 2A like every other part of the Constitution also applied to the states.
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.Forget it. You get a word salad of terms and concepts vaguely related to the question.There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
Which is dominant? the commerce clause or the 1st amendment when it comes to lifestyles vs religion?
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.The state is defying federal law in the matter, based on the will of their citizens.what has any of that got to do with pot and Colorado?
That's probably the most random, off-the-wall reply I've ever seen.
Alabama should do the same if the Supreme Court has a moment of insanity and says the people are not sovereign.
And if the Federal government wants to it can either:
a) file suit against Colorado, as it did against Arizona or
b) send DEA agents in and arrest pot growers.
Alabama will no more prevent gay marriages than it prevented mixed race marriages when the Court told the people of Alabama that their state laws are subject to the Constitution also.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
We have a Commerce Clause not any form of War on Drugs clause, which would Constitute public Use and trigger the socialism of Eminent Domain.
Which is dominant? the commerce clause or the 1st amendment when it comes to lifestyles vs religion?
