Posted on 08/03/2024 12:37:27 PM PDT by knighthawk
The third one: Other
But what if there is a lesbian in the locker room with them?
PPP money
“Eight hundred billion dollars. Here it is. Don’t pay it back.”
You can’t change your gender. I can’t believe states are allowing men to do so “legally”. This person is a “he” and the media is doing a disservice to their readers to refer to him as a “she”.
The men dressing as women have a sick sexual perversion. They dress as what they see as their ideal woman to fulfill their sexual fantasies and, from what I’ve seen, many become violent when real women do not play along with their illness. They want to control actual women.
When these men dress as very young girls, there is a good chance they are a pedophile, since that is their version of what they see as an ideal sexual partner.
I’m not a psychologist, nor do I even play one on TV, but that’s my layman’s diagnosis of what I see happening.
But unfortunately, today states are basically provinces of the Federal Government. So a federal judge would probably strike that state amendment down.
***********************************************************
Agreed. That’s why I said “State Constitutional Ammendment”. So, any group wanting to strike such an ammendment down MIGHT succeed but doubtful. Below is a Google article on the subject.
*************************************************************
No. By definition, constitutional amendments change the Constitution and the Court can not invalidate them. Nor can the president veto them. The amendment process is solely the province of the legislative branches of Congress and the states.May 3, 2023
> By definition, constitutional amendments change the Constitution and the Court can not invalidate them. <
Yes. But they’re talking about amendments to the United States Constitution. Amendments to a state’s constitution can be struck down at the whim of a federal judge.
So a state might change its state constitution in a sensible way. But if the Feds don’t like it, the amendment will not stand. That’s especially true if the Feds don’t like it for “civil rights” reasons. That stinks, and it goes to show that the federal government simply has too much power.
You can’t post that without directions to the nearest eyewash station!
My objection is the reference to these people in dehumanizing terms like “it”. That’s the road to the dark side of conservatism just as certain as it was for liberalism. That’s where the democrats went. They’re on that road and we should not adopt their dehumanizing attitudes towards people no matter their gender or ideology.
We’re talking right now about the slippery slope where it began as “tolerance” and ended as getting thrown out of a club for complaining that there’s a guy in the ladies room. That is the slippery slope. Well that can be applied equally to ourselves. That began by calling people “it”, and then shortly those same people lose control of the narrative and end up sliding down to building gas chambers to murder the dehumanized populations.
Let’s just not go there at the beginning. The seed of evil germinates into the horror of actions from either side. In today’s volatile political climates, there’s little difference between poison ivy and poison oak.
..........BUT, a state constitutional ammendment is infinitely easier, quicker and less expensive to obtain than a national Constitutional Ammendment.
Plus, since the folks trying to stop perverts from showering with their daughters would, almost certainly, be deemed by a judge to be “likely to prevail” at the Supreme Court level, pervs would not be able to prevail in an injunction action on the subject of their fellow pervs showering with their legal opponents daughters.
So, in effect, our side, using “process”, effectively bars pervs showering with our daughters a few years until the Supreme Court outlaws it altogether..........permanently.
Looks like Marty Feldman! (Sorry, Marty!)
Good point.
But the other side manages to get away with redefining terms all the time.
Yeah, It’s frustrating because we need to defeat them politically without becoming like them. Such as it is, we live in an environment where we (mostly) no longer share values with our neighbors. That brings the irony in that the only way to defeat the monster is to become one.
It’s a scary world.
It ain't a HER, nor a SHE.
Some things look better when viewed through a 3-9x telescope with a reticle ...
Divide and conquer.
8 zillion 'channels' on 'TV' will tend to do that.
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.