To: pissant
I really think they deliberately upheld the existing “marriages” to give the queers something on which to base “precedence” when they contest this further.
32 posted on
05/26/2009 10:12:23 AM PDT by
mrsmel
(Put the Gitmo terrorists near Capitol Hill.)
To: mrsmel
I really think they deliberately upheld the existing “marriages” to give the queers something on which to base “precedence” when they contest this further. Plus seeing a bunch of homo's rioting in the streets is just toooo damn fugly
39 posted on
05/26/2009 10:15:47 AM PDT by
Las Vegas Ron
(zer0 is doing to capitalism what Kennedy did to health care)
To: mrsmel
I really think they deliberately upheld the existing “marriages” to give the queers something on which to base “precedence” when they contest this further.Where do the pervs go? Is there a state court in CA that's higher than their Supreme Court? My hunch is that the decision they announced was as far as they could go and still avoid recall.I'll wager that they wanted to strike down the whole thing but settled for "half a loaf" so that both sides could claim *some* degree of victory.
To: mrsmel
87 posted on
05/26/2009 10:40:56 AM PDT by
red irish
(Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson