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.
at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.
if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.
the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.
Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.
Wanna bet that if the people of CA voted, by initiative, to ban guns or Christians from legal marriage, Fishy would be singing a different tune.
We are a representative republic, Redfish: a majority cannot overrule the 14th Amendment, ever.
You can amend the Constitution if you wish to get rid of it.
. . . . Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.
But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.
why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.
Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.
Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.
We are a representative republic, Redfish: a majority cannot overrule the 14th Amendment, ever.
You can amend the Constitution if you wish to get rid of it.
oh but it could, 38 states can amend the constitution.
we elect our representatives by majority vote, our legislature passes bills by majority vote. a majority vote adopted the constitution. We do live by majority vote.
true, we do not have a true democracy, we have a representative republic that operates on majority votes.
. . . . Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.
But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.
why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.
Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.
Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.
if the voters of a state want to sanction polygamy or bigamy, they should have that right.
I believe in states rights and individual freedom. I believe that the ethics and morals of a society should be set by the members of the society by majority vote.
I favor freedom, you favor governmental tyranny. you favor a system where the government dictates what we are allowed to believe and forces us to comply with ideas that we believe to be wrong.
We are a representative republic, Redfish: a majority cannot overrule the 14th Amendment, ever.
You can amend the Constitution if you wish to get rid of it.
oh but it could, 38 states can amend the constitution.
we elect our representatives by majority vote, our legislature passes bills by majority vote. a majority vote adopted the constitution. We do live by majority vote.
true, we do not have a true democracy, we have a representative republic that operates on majority votes.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Majority vote cannot overrule the Constitution. Only the Congress and the States, not the People, can amend the Constitution. That is how a Republic (representative, not democratic) changes the Constitution.
Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.
Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.
Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.
if the voters of a state want to sanction polygamy or bigamy, they should have that right.
I believe in states rights and individual freedom. I believe that the ethics and morals of a society should be set by the members of the society by majority vote.
I favor freedom, you favor governmental tyranny. you favor a system where the government dictates what we are allowed to believe and forces us to comply with ideas that we believe to be wrong.
You favor tyranny of the majority, bub.
You could institute polygamy or slavery, you could take away women's rights, you could establish a state religion.
That heavens your can't.
Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.
Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.
Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.
if the voters of a state want to sanction polygamy or bigamy, they should have that right.
I believe in states rights and individual freedom. I believe that the ethics and morals of a society should be set by the members of the society by majority vote.
I favor freedom, you favor governmental tyranny. you favor a system where the government dictates what we are allowed to believe and forces us to comply with ideas that we believe to be wrong.
You favor tyranny of the majority, bub.
You could institute polygamy or slavery, you could take away women's rights, you could establish a state religion.
That heavens your can't.
The Founders were imperfect for sure: slavery, debtors' prisons, anti-feminism, property requirements for voting, and so forth.
Minority rights were established in the Constitution.
You are guilty again of misrecognition: the TeaP minority are dictating to the majority as a political move and that is who you want to be king.
Sorry, kid, you can't redefine how the government works.
No, this argument is about YOU having to accept the fact that society changes in ways you don't lik.e
Thank you for admitting it.
The Founders were imperfect for sure: slavery, debtors' prisons, anti-feminism, property requirements for voting, and so forth.
Minority rights were established in the Constitution.
You are guilty again of misrecognition: the TeaP minority are dictating to the majority as a political move and that is who you want to be king.
Sorry, kid, you can't redefine how the government works.
but obama can, I see
No, this argument is about YOU having to accept the fact that society changes in ways you don't lik.e
Thank you for admitting it.
more bullshit. as I have told wytchey many times. I have gay couples who are friends and relatives, I love and respect each and every one of them. I want them to be treated fairly in every aspect of life.
they do not need the word "marriage" to accomplish that. and most of them agree with that.
No, this argument is about YOU having to accept the fact that society changes in ways you don't lik.e
Thank you for admitting it.
No, this argument is about YOU having to accept the fact that society changes in ways you don't lik.e
Thank you for admitting it.
more bullshit. as I have told wytchey many times. I have gay couples who are friends and relatives, I love and respect each and every one of them. I want them to be treated fairly in every aspect of life.
they do not need the word "marriage" to accomplish that. and most of them agree with that.
You are entitled to your opinion and to voice, and most of them certainly do not agree with you.
exactly, its something called the will of the people, something that was overruled twice in CA.
Incorrect.
Ones civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, or the will of the people, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. In our Constitutional Republic, citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly Proposition 8 is proof of that.
Consequently, the people of California never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law, predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals.
bullshit---the constitution was adopted by majority vote, leaders are elected by majority vote, local bond issues are passed by majority vote. The declaration of independence was signed after a majority of the states authorized their representatives to sign it.
what your local homeowners association does is decided by majority vote.
minority rights are established by majority vote.
innocence or guilt in a court of law is decided by majority vote.
thats they way a representative democracy works, we don't have a monarchy or a dictatorship, we vote and the majority decides how the society will operate.
Incorrect.
Ones civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, or the will of the people, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. In our Constitutional Republic, citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly Proposition 8 is proof of that.
Consequently, the people of California never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law, predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals.
bullshit---the constitution was adopted by majority vote, leaders are elected by majority vote, local bond issues are passed by majority vote. The declaration of independence was signed after a majority of the states authorized their representatives to sign it.
what your local homeowners association does is decided by majority vote.
minority rights are established by majority vote.
innocence or guilt in a court of law is decided by majority vote.
thats they way a representative democracy works, we don't have a monarchy or a dictatorship, we vote and the majority decides how the society will operate.
Um, no, its not BS, its accepted and settled Constitutional case law.
No one ever said local jurisdictions are not at liberty to decide local matters, which is clearly preferable; but those matters must be decided within the context of Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.
If the states and local jurisdictions want to function absent the involvement of the Federal courts, they simply need to avoid enacting measures clearly un-Constitutional, such as Proposition 8.
And when a state or local jurisdiction enacts a measure repugnant to the Constitution, residents of that state or local jurisdiction whose civil liberties are violated by that measure may seek relief in the Federal courts.
As long as you and others on the right continue to attempt to codify your hate and ignorance, you can expect to have such measures invalidated by the courts in the future.
Its up to you.
at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.
if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.
the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.
Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.
Wanna bet that if the people of CA voted, by initiative, to ban guns or Christians from legal marriage, Fishy would be singing a different tune.
