The legislative branch. The liberal’s best friend takes away the will of the people

[JRK]

JRK is obviously a southern white, a neo-con, and a race hater.

The members of the board who understand our history will never let a far right neo-con statist reactionary like JRK, with a radical agenda, succeed with his perversity.

We do not want that type of thinking in the Republican Party.

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Yea Jake is right
I Hate anybody that has anything to do with the word race
I am so sick and tired of people looking at people as a color and not a person
Perversity?
Radical
Jake is on ignore because this is all he knows how to do
He has no skills to debate the issues
he just slanders people
That is the normal liberal response
ignore the issues, lie about those you dis agree with, and pray to god they dont sue you for slander
Southern white male
the only true minority in this country

 

[Seawytch]

JRK is obviously a southern white, a neo-con, and a race hater.

The members of the board who understand our history will never let a far right neo-con statist reactionary like JRK, with a radical agenda, succeed with his perversity.

We do not want that type of thinking in the Republican Party.

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

 

[JRK]

JRK is obviously a southern white, a neo-con, and a race hater.

The members of the board who understand our history will never let a far right neo-con statist reactionary like JRK, with a radical agenda, succeed with his perversity.

We do not want that type of thinking in the Republican Party.

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

I have no feelings one way or another torwards gays
BUT
Marriage is a union with a man and a woman
You want federal benifits? Same as a man and woman?
What was wrong with a legal union?
My god give it a rest
We have nothing left
no matter what the cost to the left is, steal it, lie about, cheat it
two men or for that matter two women cannot be married
Of course in the eyes of the ibs, anything goes
nothing is sacrid

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK is obviously a southern white, a neo-con, and a race hater.

The members of the board who understand our history will never let a far right neo-con statist reactionary like JRK, with a radical agenda, succeed with his perversity.

We do not want that type of thinking in the Republican Party.

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Yea Jake is right
I Hate anybody that has anything to do with the word race
I am so sick and tired of people looking at people as a color and not a person
Perversity?
Radical
Jake is on ignore because this is all he knows how to do
He has no skills to debate the issues
he just slanders people
That is the normal liberal response
ignore the issues, lie about those you dis agree with, and pray to god they dont sue you for slander
Southern white male
the only true minority in this country

Freewill is typical of the reactionary with a radical far right wing agenda.

Hate on race is bigotry. Hate of gays is bigotry. Bigotry = Bigotry.

Freewill and the other bigots come running in, get their mouths washed out, then cry, and run out.

Sheesh. Understand this, reactionaries. Bigotry is wrong and un-American.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, what you think does not matter.

 

[Seawytch]

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

I have no feelings one way or another torwards gays
BUT
Marriage is a union with a man and a woman
You want federal benifits? Same as a man and woman?
What was wrong with a legal union?
My god give it a rest
We have nothing left
no matter what the cost to the left is, steal it, lie about, cheat it
two men or for that matter two women cannot be married
Of course in the eyes of the ibs, anything goes
nothing is sacrid

Not a thing is "wrong" with it...as long as that's what everybody gets. Legal marriage for you and civil unions for gays ain't gonna fly. Civil Unions for all will though.

 

[Papageorgio]

I understand the frustration. It has been shared many times, by folks on all sides of the political spectrum when a law they manage to pass fails judicial review (just like many gun restriction laws).

The question you need to reflect upon is why do we have a Constitution? Why is it so much more difficult to amend that Constitution than it is to pass a referendum? Should that Constitution be enforced? And by who?

When you can answer those questions - for yourself and by yourself - then you'll see your error.

The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had no standing in the case they did not rule on the Constitutionality of the law.

 

[EriktheRed]

What does that have to do with the will of the People?
and your right, that was a stuipd mistake on my part

Joe likes to forget it was democrats that made those Jim Crow laws.

And grabbed and twisted the Republican snouts and led the good Dems and Pubs of the north and west against the bad Dems and Pubs of the South to end it.

You only lose cred when you tell only part of the story, JRK. You have been corrected on this before. Quit acting like a neo-con reactionary.

He loves to regurgitate that zombie talking point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is true, papa, and the far right does not want a case in front of SCOTUS that forces them to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Their own precedence lock them into it.

 

[EriktheRed]

Again the will of the people is ignored

The state of California spoke clear

SO in 20 years, when the Hispanics are the majority and THEY decide to vote YES on
the "Whites can't vote" bill and it passes, you are going to be fine with THAT "will of the people"?

friggin moron.

look up "Republic"

Basically, JRK (again, whose name is missing an "E") is bitching and moaning because a policy he doesn't like is going to become law. That's really all this is about.

 

[EriktheRed]

Joe likes to forget it was democrats that made those Jim Crow laws.

It is true that those Conservatives who implemented those Jim Crow laws were Democrats.

The only reason you make the lame attempt to make the liberal/conservative distinction is because it is a childish attempt to deflect away from the democrat racism, past and present. The past that the racists democrat party NEVER has apologized for and they continue to lie today. They don't apologize for it because they embrace it.

Yeah, that message has really been resonating.


/sarcasm

 

[Seawytch]

I understand the frustration. It has been shared many times, by folks on all sides of the political spectrum when a law they manage to pass fails judicial review (just like many gun restriction laws).

The question you need to reflect upon is why do we have a Constitution? Why is it so much more difficult to amend that Constitution than it is to pass a referendum? Should that Constitution be enforced? And by who?

When you can answer those questions - for yourself and by yourself - then you'll see your error.

The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had no standing in the case they did not rule on the Constitutionality of the law.

Which was already ruled upon by the lower court...which is what's "on the books" now...Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry but the ENTIRE point of the SCOTUS here is to rule on the will of the people against the protections of the constitution. In that light, it is the judicial branches JOB to rule against the people when they have tried to oppress the minority’s rights.

You have to argue that it is NOT against the constitution and I think that you have one hell of a big mountain to move in order to twist the fourteenth around as allowing such. Face it, it really IS constitutional and freedom is not a bad thing. Stop with the restricting freedom because you feel something is ‘wrong.’

Wrong is not sufficient for restriction. That is reserved to infringing on others rights. You may not realize it but trying to strike this down and prevent gays from marring is using the exact same thought process that liberals use all the damn time to pass legislation that protects us from ourselves. You need to do some serious reflection and realize what that thought process leads to.

 

[FA_Q2]

I understand the frustration. It has been shared many times, by folks on all sides of the political spectrum when a law they manage to pass fails judicial review (just like many gun restriction laws).

The question you need to reflect upon is why do we have a Constitution? Why is it so much more difficult to amend that Constitution than it is to pass a referendum? Should that Constitution be enforced? And by who?

When you can answer those questions - for yourself and by yourself - then you'll see your error.

The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had no standing in the case they did not rule on the Constitutionality of the law.

Which was already ruled upon by the lower court...which is what's "on the books" now...Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

But that still leaves it open to challenge with someone that has standing to the SCOTUS, does it not since they have not actually ruled on it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

But that still leaves it open to challenge with someone that has standing to the SCOTUS, does it not since they have not actually ruled on it?

Exactly, I don't think they will do it once they consider that they are gambling one state against possibly losing the other 37 states.

 

[Seawytch]

The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had no standing in the case they did not rule on the Constitutionality of the law.

Which was already ruled upon by the lower court...which is what's "on the books" now...Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

But that still leaves it open to challenge with someone that has standing to the SCOTUS, does it not since they have not actually ruled on it?

That is correct, but who? No CA Governor of either political stripe is gonna touch it. It's done. Gays will be marrying by the thousands in July.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which was already ruled upon by the lower court...which is what's "on the books" now...Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

But that still leaves it open to challenge with someone that has standing to the SCOTUS, does it not since they have not actually ruled on it?

That is correct, but who? No CA Governor of either political stripe is gonna touch it. It's done. Gays will be marrying by the thousands in July.

Never said that they would BUT it is not decided by the SCOTUS. There is a difference.

Personally, I don’t think it mattered anyway and I actually did not want the court to decide on this. Why you might ask? Because the people were already doing it. I think that the debate would be better settled if the people finally woke up and did it themselves rather than the courts demanding that it was done. The courts were late to the table, people all over the damn country are passing gay rights bills on their own.

 

[Freewill]

JRK is obviously a southern white, a neo-con, and a race hater.

The members of the board who understand our history will never let a far right neo-con statist reactionary like JRK, with a radical agenda, succeed with his perversity.

We do not want that type of thinking in the Republican Party.

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

Gays were not and have not been discriminated against. Again the comparison is not fitting you just want it to be that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This from the pretender that equates being black to being gay.

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

Gays were not and have not been discriminated against. Again the comparison is not fitting you just want it to be that way.

Yes, gays were discriminated against, but the discriminators got their butts kicked by SCOTUS.

 

[JRK]

But that still leaves it open to challenge with someone that has standing to the SCOTUS, does it not since they have not actually ruled on it?

That is correct, but who? No CA Governor of either political stripe is gonna touch it. It's done. Gays will be marrying by the thousands in July.

Never said that they would BUT it is not decided by the SCOTUS. There is a difference.

Personally, I don’t think it mattered anyway and I actually did not want the court to decide on this. Why you might ask? Because the people were already doing it. I think that the debate would be better settled if the people finally woke up and did it themselves rather than the courts demanding that it was done. The courts were late to the table, people all over the damn country are passing gay rights bills on their own.

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken