Gay rights law foes must pay court

AP via The Washington Times ^ | November 1, 2001 | Tom Stuckey, AP

[FormerLib]

ANNAPOLIS

[Clint N. Suhks]

Bump

[Paul C. Jesup]

I said Ancient Roman and Greek Philosophers.

And your challenge has no validity.

[Paul C. Jesup]

How much do you know about this subject?

Or are you just stating your own blind ignorant views.

By the way, I used the noun ,hermaphodite, because it is the noun with the closest meaning to discribe a child born with sexual characteristics of both male and female genitalia.

[Sabertooth]

The Constitution didn't define marraige as one man and one woman because the Constitution is not a dictionary.

Doesn't change the meaning of the word "marriage," any more than it changes the meaning of the words "bird," "frog," or "chimpanzee."

The Constitution is also silent on the issue of group marriage and interspecies marriage. Should we also accept that as tacit approval?

[FormerLib]

The Constitution didn't define marraige as one man and one woman because the Constitution is not a dictionary.

That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Pardon me, but I fail to see why your religious notions should have any bearing whatsoever on secular law.

Oh probably because the religious notions of our founding fathers had great bearing on the secular law that they gave us.

[Sabertooth]

"That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them."

I oppose the Marriage Ammendment for this reason:

It isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with marriage or it's definition. The problem is a rogue Judiciary, who thinks that they are empowered to rewrite the Constitution AND the dictionary.

The secondary problem is a complicit Legislative branch which has abdicated their responsibility to impeach judges who violate their oath of office, failing to "honor and uphold" the Constitution.

If we go for the Marriage Ammendment trap, we're admitting (again) that the Constitution, as written, is meaningless. We're accepting that judges have it in their power to act like autocrats, and we're accepting that it is our only option to deal with these things on a case by case basis.

What good is an Ammendment to a meaningless Constitution?

It's actually much easier to impeach a federal judge than it is to Ammend the Constitution. Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Ammendments require 2/3 of heach house, plus 3/4 of the legislatures in all 50 States. Make that both legislatures in bicameral States.

[FormerLib]

What good is an Ammendment to a meaningless Constitution?

You've actually answered your own question. It will pen in the otherwise activist Judiciary.

It's actually much easier to impeach a federal judge than it is to Ammend the Constitution. Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Ammendments require 2/3 of heach house, plus 3/4 of the legislatures in all 50 States. Make that both legislatures in bicameral States.

Tell you what, you go to work on getting them impeached and I'll continue to work on the Amendment. When the Amendment comes around, I won't support it if you're achieved the goal. Otherwise, you support the Amendment. Deal?

[Clint N. Suhks]

How much do you know about this subject? Or are you just stating your own blind ignorant views.

Enough to know your “transsex” agenda and that it doesn’t have anything to do with intersexuality. Nice denial though, I especially like the one about, “The standard is surgery to give them female genitalia”, Pure blind ignorant crap!

[Antoninus]

I said Ancient Roman and Greek Philosophers.

No, you only added 'Greek' after I demonstrated that you didn't know what you were talking about with regard to the Romans. As it turns out, you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the Greeks either.

And your challenge has no validity.

Of course not. It would be utterly futile for you to attempt to find some Greek or Roman laws that allowed for same-sex marriages because even they knew that the idea is an utter absurdity. So absurd that it was only contemplated in the theater as farce. Thus, whenever a case like this arrives in an American court, it should be dismissed out of hand. The fact that some people take such cases seriously shows that perhaps we in this country are even less civilized than Greco-Romans were 2500 years ago...

[Sabertooth]

You've actually answered your own question. It will pen in the otherwise activist Judiciary.

If the Constitution as it stands doesn't pen in the Judiciary, how can an Ammendment?

[bribriagain]

Victims of Same Sex Addiction Disorder need to be pitied, for they are pitiful creatures, indeed.

[Belial]

Almost as pathetic as people with Lame-Post-Psychobabble-Disorder.

[FormerLib]

If the Constitution as it stands doesn't pen in the Judiciary, how can an Ammendment?

Because they thrive on ambiguous or missing language. That's how they can read the Consititution and discover a right to an abortion hidden inside a right to privacy. Put in an Amendment that guarantees the right to life for the unborn, and they can't make their silly argument anymore.

Define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and they won't be able to discover a right for fudge-packers to marry hidden elsewhere either.

[Clint N. Suhks]

By the way, I used the noun ,hermaphodite, because it is the noun with the closest meaning to discribe a child born with sexual characteristics of both male and female genitalia.

Wrong again, genitalia characteristics are either male, female or ambiguous. A hermaphrodite means having functioning reproductive organs in plants and microorganisms and has nothing to do with humans. You’re generalizing a great multitude of syndromes into one neat little package to promote your transsexual agenda.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I said the CLOSEST noun. I do NOT say the EXACT noun.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You really should loosen that tinfoil hat you have on. It's starting to cook your brain.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Whoa. I think you misunderstood my first reply to you.

In my original reply, I was trying to point out to you that you were wrong that Western Civilization had no historical homosexual effluence’s.

The Ancient Roman Civilization, which Western Civilization was partially based on, was pro-homosexual.

I was NOT trying to stated that the Ancient Roman Civilization had homosexual marriages.

[OBAFGKM]

"Wrong again, genitalia characteristics are either male, female or ambiguous. A hermaphrodite means having functioning reproductive organs in plants and microorganisms and has nothing to do with humans."

You're wrong, Clint. "Hermaphrodite" has been used in medical terminology for over 100 years to describe a wide array of human conditions. The following is just one of 1000's of such articles found in medical journals:

P&S Medical Review: August 1996, Vol.3, No.2
True Hermaphroditism: Considerations in the Management of Patients Presenting in Early and Adult Life

Abstract

A twenty-seven year old man with penoscrotal hypospadias and unilateral undescended gonad was diagnosed with lateral true hermaphroditism during an evaluation for infertility. Phenotype male true hermaphrodites seldom present in adult life, and rarely for infertility. This case illustrates how diagnosis and treatment may be delayed until a significant personal event, such as infertility, prompts medical evaluation.

The term is going out of style in favor of "intersexed," but it's still commonly used. Some hermaphrodites find it offensive, others don't give a toot. You can find the rest of the article at Hermaphrodite

You're also dead wrong about nearly everything else you been pontificating on. Attending physicians have been "assigning" sex to babies based on penis size and shape since the first part of the 20th century. Boys with penises less than 1 inch were routinely whacked and raised as girls. Parents were counseled that it was best for the child. A mind-boggling array of genital malformities in boys received similar attention. (Current wisdom is slowly turning away from these practices. It's about time.) Furthermore, there is no such thing as the "gender one is born with" you tout in post #100. I hate to pop your bubble, but intersexuality is a real live human condition and some people just don't fit neatly into your little black & white, male & female world-view.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I said the CLOSEST noun. I do NOT say the EXACT noun. You really should loosen that tinfoil hat you have on. It's starting to cook your brain.

Hehehe…

Is that the best you got, no denial, no challenge of fact? If you can’t defend your own statements why publish them in the first place, were you hoping no one would notice you don’t know what you’re talking about? You insult yourself.