Posted on 11/19/2003 8:35:10 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The gays are marching in. The end is near. Sheer unadulterated evil and scary anal sex and superlative hair products and new blasts of fresh happy love are to be unleashed anew upon the country. Horror is nigh. Everyone into the bunker.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Pat Ireland says If it feels good do it.
...or I'm a feminist I'm in your face
...or something.
2. The military is an institution. When I was enlisted in the Air Force I was serving the federal governemnt as a citizen of my state, which at the time, was Arizona. As to your question about Iraq, several towns have passed resolutions against the war. But the citizens of Cal serving in the reserves or active duty are goverened by a different set of laws, the UCMJ, becuause our society had a compelling interest to require military members to live under a different set of laws.
3. You do not think that in the present climate of political correctness, we can avoid the tyranny of the minority? Tyranny is tyranny.
So does having a national set of standards (our Constitution with your proposed amendment) violate the meaning of our Republic? Since folks should be able to move to a state that suits their mores (as per your republic definition) a national set of standards would seem incompatible with a republic.
This is exactly how our government was set up. Powers that do not fall under the state are delegated to the federal governent. It's in the constitution.
Will someone please tell this candyass to go f**k himself?
Never mind.............I'll do it...................
So does having a national set of standards (our Constitution with your proposed amendment) violate the meaning of our Republic? Since folks should be able to move to a state that suits their mores (as per your republic definition) a national set of standards would seem incompatible with a republic.
Just a quick clairfication: The question of marriage is one of institution; so it is by definition, something the states, in and of themselves, cannot address. An ammendment will be necessary only because a few judges in Mass will force the issue. I did not make this point clear in my last post to you, because I thought you were talking about choice. Sorry.
Wrong forum to try this tripe, slick.
Admit it...........you slept through your history courses, didn't you?
There is just that inconvenient detail about governing with the consent of the governed (the majority).
"proving that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and immoral and just plain stupid"
Oh really? Anybody care to venture a guess what the actual drafters of the Constitution would say about that?
"Religious people (unlike the religious liberals), in particular.
Hyperzealous (unlike the rabid Marxists), evangelical,
white (oh, believing queers are perverts is a racial issue now? Who knew?),
borderline fanatical religious people (as opposed to completely fanatical lefties)
who apparently don't see a lot of sunlight (not to put too fine a point on it, but Satan is generally the one who does his dirty deeds under cover of darkness - see DemocRATic Underground)
and never read books (except that one, what's it called? Oh yeah, the BIBLE)
and believe everything their homophobic intolerant (you have some nerve calling anybody else intolerant) Bible-spouting evangelical pastor and maybe Ann Coulter say, even more particularly.
Nope. Go ahead, try me.
Actually, I believe it is all about the push by the neo-communists to destroy the fabric of America and the Judeo-Christian culture, and to destabilize the country until it descends into civil war, at which time they will REALLY make their move. Of course, their first move will be to kill all the homosexual and liberal useful idiots that did their work for them.
Agreed. However, I believe the neo-communists are just another layer of useful idiots who will also be liquidated when a global government is firmly in place.
Does anyone know how many problems would get solved by simply outlawing judges?
I have no problems with judges as long as they strictly adhere to the constitution and not make up rights that never existed, or law that our legislatures (read we the people) never voted to enact.
Why d'ya think that Chucky S and Teddy K are filibustering 12 of 41 federal apelet judges? Judges and courts. That is what it is all about Judges and Courts.
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.