The Left Loses Ground...

[Jroc]

Coming from some idiot who as a avatar of a person who cant seem to be able to buy her own birth control without help from the federal government

C'mon...call her the name...let your inner republican show through.

She's not too bright,neither are you

She's rich, successful and apparently has a happy life. You're arguing with a stranger on the Internet. Advantage Fluke.

say the word...you know you want to call her that....

Do you have the hots for her?..she's a leftist tool

You brought up Ms. Fluke....it would seem you are the one with "the hots" for her

Yeah i think i can turn her

 

[Seawytch]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

Your ignorance never ceases to amuse, PoliticalSpice.

No matter how large you post your cartoons.....it doesn't help hide your embarrassment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

Your ignorance never ceases to amuse, PoliticalSpice.

No matter how large you post your cartoons.....it doesn't help hide your embarrassment.

Irony squared!

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no material difference from a perspective of discrimination. The bigots have to concoct one because the arguments they make against gay rights are the arguments that were made against racial minority rights,

and at least most of them don't want to have to explain that.

No one has to concoct" a thing. There is a vast difference between so-called "gay marriage" and miscegenation. Gay marriage defeats the whole point of the institution. Blacks are one of the main opponents of gay marriage, and they find any comparison of it with racial discrimination offensive.

You also think blacks are more racist than whites, lol.

They are.

Gay marriage does nothing to opposite sex marriage. It exists as an entirely separate component within the institution.

Gay marriage makes the institution a joke. It never existed at all until it was invented by the GAYstapo and liberal judges.

Will you be getting divorced then? Are you married? Do you now consider your marriage a joke?

How has the little woman reacted to that revelation on your part?

You will find that a lot fewer people will be getting married. In fact, that's already occurring.

Since when? What's your timeline and where can you attribute this to gays?

Do you have a link to marriage rates by state*? I have one of Divorce Rates. What state has been marrying gays the longest? I'll tell you...Massachusetts (11 years now). Did you know they have one of the lowest divorce rates in the U.S.?

*This is kinda cool...

 

[PoliticalChic]

btw, and PC can relate to this...

...you have the right in this country to send your kids to private school, or to homeschool them.

Find those rights in the Constitution, or admit you don't think they should be rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Gee I don't see the words 'private school' in there. According to you and Rabbi, they have to be IN the Constitution. You can't PUT them IN the Constitution.

Seems you didn't see these words: "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,"

Let me explain it to you:
It means that nothing beyond the enumerated powers are the business of the federal government.

It's in plain English, and requires no "interpretation."

 

[jon_berzerk]

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany

--LOL your kidding right

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

See. That's a classic dum dum move. Now he's claiming you believe something you never said. It never fails. When backed into a corner he comes out with shit like that. It's a sure sign he's lost the argument.

Read her post. She said the word 'interpret' is 'bogus'. She's the Constitution is in English, thus implying it needs no interpretation. She says judges stole the right to interpret the Constitution.

Get your nose out of her gashole and READ what she posts.

And, of course, what I posted is true and correct.


Your vulgarity reveals that you know you've lost.

 

[Jroc]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who needs the constitution when we have such "smart people" around to run our loves for us. "Smart people" The leftist idiot carbineer's, quote. In his mind we need those "smart people" to decided what liberties we are allowed to keep

 

[Seawytch]

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

 

[The Rabbi]

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

Its clear they arent as some states have passed laws banning them.
You are the biggest numskull on this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

I held up Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf as the baseline for his pretend-Christian propaganda campaign.

All you have shown us is the words he used in crafting that baseline.

Well, we both agree that that words exist on paper.

What we disagree about is whether he disingenuously utilized those words to hoodwink the German people doing what he wanted them to.

I can think that I'm a Republican, and pretend that I'm a Republican, for public consumption, like one or two posters around here, but if my actions or day-to-day postings do not match my pretended affiliation, then nobody is going to believe that, in the final analysis.

Same concept at work here, in our own narrow context.

Hitler could think that he was a Christian, and pretend that he was a Christian, but his actions and policies and strategies in an increasing use of historical pre-Christian German Paganism - tweaked for modern consumption - as a replacement State Religion - screams non-Christian for anyone with a pair of ears and a modicum of common sense.

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And, if you have not done so already, you would do well to read Shirer's "Rise and Fall...", which, although exceedingly long, will serve-up additional insights, in opposition to your silly assertions about Hitler and Christianity.

What part of "I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic." do you need help comprehending?

If you READ Mein Kampf, instead of attacking me, you would be going after PC and her ilk for claiming Hitler was a liberal or a 'leftist'...

Hitler was not a liberal. But he was a progressive. That makes him a leftist.

Hitler's agenda was:
1) Nationalism...ULTRA nationalism. Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.

2) Militarism...Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.

3) Purging Germany of undesirables...
a) Jews
b) homosexuals
c) Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany

PLEASE highlight the 'progressive' agenda pea brain?

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Founders are turning in their graves. We need to go after these activist judges with tar and feathers.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

Hey pea brain, why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of showing everyone how stupid you are? All you have to is READ the thread.

Post # 100


Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

You'd think the consistent landslide rejection of the Left since 2008 would have clue'd ya in. It started with obamaScare, then doubled down when Lesbians started ruining the lives of innocent people, like they were unwanted pregnancies. But hey... I say you idiots should just keep rollin' right along like ya have been.

Sooner or later we're bound to boot the GOP Royalty from the Legislative Leadership and maybe even an American President.

THEN.... maybe we can give you an idea of what a viable government looks like, just before you fall into irrelevance.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

That did not answer my question and had nothing to do with what I said.

A surprising number of judges who rule for gay marriage are Republicans

 

[Seawytch]

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Founders are turning in their graves. We need to go after these activist judges with tar and feathers.

You are a very silly person.

 

[The Rabbi]

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Founders are turning in their graves. We need to go after these activist judges with tar and feathers.

You are a very silly person.

Your admission of defeat is noted.
The USSC will hand the homos their asses. They know if they legalize gay marriage they will open the floodgates of lawsuits against every religious institution in this country. The Solicitor General already copped to that.