Welcome to our new enlightened society!Thank You Liberals!
Thank You Libertarians!
Thank You Moderates!
Thank You Progressives!
Thank You Morons!!!!!
1 posted on
11/07/2003 12:35:43 PM PST by
carlo3b
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: carlo3b
INTREP - JUDICIAL ANARCHY
To: carlo3b
Ok everything is OK./sarcasm
3 posted on
11/07/2003 12:38:10 PM PST by
bmwcyle
(Hillary's election to President will start a civil war)
To: carlo3b
Maybe the emphasis should have been on "perversion" rather than "adultery." This would not just cover the present example but also things like sex with the family dog (barf...)
4 posted on
11/07/2003 12:38:43 PM PST by
HiTech RedNeck
("Across this great nation people pray -- do not put out her flame" -- DFU. Go Godsquad!!!)
To: carlo3b
Unbelievable. Define adultery. Define marital unfaithfulness.
6 posted on
11/07/2003 12:39:43 PM PST by
petitfour
To: carlo3b
The NH Supreme Court is a collective of busy-body idiots.
8 posted on
11/07/2003 12:41:46 PM PST by
GraniteStateConservative
("We happy because when we switch on the TV you never see Saddam Hussein. That's a big happy.")
To: carlo3b
"We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
-- George Orwell
To: carlo3b
And yet in every other aspect the sodomites want the same acknowledgments as heterosexual couples
Who doesn't believe we are living in the end times?
11 posted on
11/07/2003 12:43:23 PM PST by
apackof2
(Watch and pray till you see Him coming, no one knows the hour or the day)
To: carlo3b
Well.. according to someone very close to me, vaginal penile penetration isn't sex as long as the man does not reach climax.
13 posted on
11/07/2003 12:48:25 PM PST by
Darksheare
(DemUn, a good excuse to throw Holy Water on liberals.)
To: carlo3b
NH divorce law states that he comes out on top if she engages in "adultry." In other NH laws, adultry is defined as "sexual intercourse." Maybe the court just took the standard definition of sexual intercourse, which is "coitus," and that doesn't happen in lesbian sex.
In that case, you don't have judicial activism because according to the law she didn't commit adultry. Thus judges were being judicially conservative because they didn't effectively rewrite the law to include what it doesn't explicitly include as written. It's up to the legislature to close this rediculous loophole by broadly defining adultry in the divorce law.
To: carlo3b
It totally depends on what the definition of is ... is.
17 posted on
11/07/2003 12:53:11 PM PST by
Naspino
(I am in no way associated with the views expressed in your posts.)
To: carlo3b
Maybe the judges were gay.. Maybe they they are naked beneath their robes, who knows??
19 posted on
11/07/2003 12:54:10 PM PST by
a_Turk
(Threatened by shadows at night, and exposed in the light....)
To: carlo3b
Last winter, there was an exodus of gays leaving N. California after selling their homes at a good profit.
We couldn't understand why they would go Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine. None of them would really say why they went back to one of these three states.
Since then with the pro gay laws passed by the legislators, the pro gay decisions by the courts, the Gay Bishop and other sanctioned pro gay behavior, we now understand that this has been in the works for a long time.
24 posted on
11/07/2003 12:57:33 PM PST by
Grampa Dave
("If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less.")
To: carlo3b
The more we march down this path of exposing the legal institution and definition of marriage to such nonsense, the more harm we do to women and children. But then, the feminists can't see that, as they work hard for such redefinitions around legal concepts like rape, marriage, and life. Idiots.
To: ahadams2; carlo3b; Dr. Eckleburg; scripter; EdReform; George W. Bush; aristeides; P-Marlowe
The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.
Aha, now you can let the ecusa know that bishop vicki-gene was not living in sin. Unbelievable.
Script & Dr.E, if female/female cannot be adultery because it isn't sexual intercourse, then sexual intercourse must = male/female coitus. Therefore, male to male is also not sexual intercourse seeing that it is lacking exactly one vagina. Two observations: (1) If you cannot commit adultery then you obviously cannot be married; (2) If you cannot be having sexual intercourse, then the best description of this act is as it's always been....sodomy.
29 posted on
11/07/2003 1:03:26 PM PST by
xzins
(Proud to be Army!)
To: carlo3b
Strictly speaking I guess the judges are right.
But what is she was wearing a strap-on...would that count?
This is one weird case
To: carlo3b
So, just because the actual definition of a word isn't what you believe it should be, everybody else is an idiot?
adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.
31 posted on
11/07/2003 1:05:57 PM PST by
laredo44
To: carlo3b
Why aren't lesbians decrying this as hate-mongering and oppressive? The court just said that gay women literally can't have "sex" with each other, yet gay men can ("intercourse"). This is clearly a gender bias!
To: carlo3b
Perhaps taking their lead from the Episcopal church. No adultery in gayness therein either.
35 posted on
11/07/2003 1:23:05 PM PST by
onedoug
To: Little Bill
Sure you don't wanna come back down to Taxachusetts?
To: carlo3b
Any form of sex with anyone other than your spouse is adultery!Besides,what does a da*n judge know about sex other than how to scr*w the one standing in front of him???
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson