These Bob Mackie Gowns are fabu-loussssssssssssss!
Posted on 11/29/2008 12:21:07 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
These people are nuts.
PA-LEEZE.
> This is America. The majority doesn’t have the right to vote out of existence the civil rights of the minority. In other words, your so-called “right” to “majority rule” ends where my nose begins. We’re a Republic — with constitutionally-guaranteed equality and protections for those who always need it the most.
Strictly speaking, is the stuff that I've set out in bold true?
The essence of Democracy is "one man, one vote, majority rules." Now I know that you don't have a "Democracy" in the US, you have a "Constitutional Republic". But surely what Democracy you have in the US is quite a bit stronger than is suggested by the writer?
Our New Zealand version of Democracy (One man, two votes, majority gets to negotiate who rules) certainly is.
Very little in that screed is accurate. Our Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights is the blueprint and rulebook for our way of life, and Mr. Comer would do well to read it.
"Queer"
2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady:
4. mentally unbalanced or deranged.
Kinda says it all.Particularly with this clown.
> “Queer”
I propose a different, brand-new appelation: “Odd”
It more accurately describes the subject matter at hand.
“I will thlap him with my purth!”
Sounded like a threat to me.
“We’re here. We’re queer. And we deserve equality.”
Somebody tell this clown that gays already have the same rights heterosexuals do. We cannot marry a person of the same sex either. He doesn’t want equal rights, he wants special rights.
These idiots are delusional
Exactly! Well said.
What size of lube do you want? Extra large!
The same sex marriage battle in a nutshell:
Political Front: 30 states now passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Everywhere the issue won, even in liberal states, even during liberal surges everywhere else. The federal courts are sufficiently conservative to insure that same sex marriage will not be legislated from a federal bench in the near future.
Cultural Front: Homosexuals have won wide acceptance in society. Everyone knows a gay celebrity. Gay themed shows and movies are watched by millions. Thousands of companies offer benefits to same sex couples. Politicians march in gay pride parades. The nations youth is very accepting of homosexuality, and all demographics are showing a move towards acceptance of same sex relationships.
Prognosis: Culture directs politics. Slowly but surely homosexuals will gain wider and wider acceptance until they begin making political progress. Only a major religious revival or some other enormous cultural shift could halt the process.
These Bob Mackie Gowns are fabu-loussssssssssssss!
It's really pretty sick and twisted. What they do with their bodies is another story. It's what takes place in their minds which is the true hazard, ime.
This is the utter stupidity of the thinking right here. Conservatives on this are the ones who are defending Natural Law in all this and saying that rights are *not* up for a vote...that "we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights". Rights come from God, as the Declaration says. And God's feelings on this particular matter are plain as punch. It's the sodomites who think the state can invent new rights and new definitions of marriage out of thin air.
You know, I'm even sick to death of arguing this issue. Because it doesn't matter. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. These folks will upend heaven and earth to preserve their free exercise of sodomy with moral approval.
But then I look at the financial news and I am more and more convinced that the judgment of God is almost upon us. Let's see how the gay bars and bookstores and bathhouses do when inflation spirals out of control and there are lines for bread and soup. The moral degeneracy of this nation is about to reap a terrible harvest--may God spare us from the worst of it.
Strictly speaking, is the stuff that I've set out in bold true?
Both the federal and state constitutions provide means for amending them. In the case of the California constitution the voters can, by a simple majority, amend the constitution. Other states have similar provisions in their constitutions, and needless to say you don't hear any complaints from liberals when they amend a constitution to suit their political goals.
At the federal level the process is much more complex, requiring a super majority of states to ratify the amendment. Some amendments pass to good effect, like the one that outlawed slavery, other amendments burden the citizens like the amendment which enabled our income tax. One amendment - prohibiting drinking alcoholic beverages - was so stupid it was repealed.
In each case civil rights were lost. In the case of slavery the citizens deemed that freedom for all people was more important than the property rights of a minority.
The arguments of those who are trying to force a re-definition of marriage onto the rest of society by creative use of the legal system that somehow they are losing rights is nonsensical. They could seek to overturn the various specific laws or policies which they alledge are the cause of the discrimination, but interestingly they do not.
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.