Posted on 05/26/2009 5:03:07 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
People don’t become minorities based on who they have sex with. Its a strawman’s argument.
If in fact this ruling is a blow to minorities as the Post claims, it is not the California Supreme Court’s fault. The California constitution is extremely easy to amend. All an amendment requires once on the ballot is a simple majority vote.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You watch and see.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
idot. How does a lifestyle choice equal an inherent quality such as your race?
It reafirms that marrage s between a man and woman.
No supposed right has been forfeited by this vote. You wanted to change the definiton legally and culturally.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Load of bunk from the Washington Post; best ignored.
While not an attorney, my take:
If they openly advocate keeping Black and Hispanic turnout low, that is a federal crime. It clearly constitutes "voter supression". If they engage in it in a group, in some kind of coordination and in specific action-type language, they could also be guilty of RICO violations--certainly federal civil rights and voting rights statutes.
I think a federal crime is being committed.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!
:-)
Why hasn’t Daily Kos pulled this thread?
Can they pull this thread?
It would seem so.
I would rather they continue a bit, get flagged by the Justice Department, get indicted and get shut down.
Oh yes it’s the ole “anything we can’t get popular support for we’ll just declare it to be a civil right.”
The "liberal" agenda would never be successful if they stopped finding “victims”
. . . because "liberals" (I took the liberty of inserting scare quotes around the word in your original post because "liberals" are about suppressing liberty and are better styled governmentists) subsist by criticizing, condemning, and complaining. That is the natural behavior of associated journalism. Because without the check of internal competition, associated journalism naturally promotes itself by tearing down everyone else's reputation.Governmentists are called "liberals" because advocacy of liberty - true liberalism - was popular, and the opposite - what I call governmentism - failed under the brand name "socialism" in America. So in the 1920s in America the journalists helped those who helped themselves (i.e. who helped journalism promote itself by criticizing the productive) by inverting the meaning of "liberalism."
And so we need a different word than "liberal" to describe those who stole our label and ran it into the ground. I coined "governmentism" as maximally descriptive since governmentists systematically choose to use euphemisms (e.g., "the public sector," "public schools," or "society") for the word "government." They will say, "Society must feed the children," and mean nothing other than that government should do it.
Agreed.
Also, the famous pro-SSM argument goes:
“There is no down side to expanding rights
in this way.”
Wrong.
When rights are given, other rights are removed.
The right of parents to teach that homosexuality is
wrong.
This kind of normalization of homosexuality is
really what they’re after. So they should just
ask us to think of them as normal. Don’t change
a basic societal institution to accomplish
normalization. That way we can choose and
our rights are not diminished.
Talk about a win-win!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.