Skip to comments.
Witnessing Our Latest Social Revolution
San Diego Union-Tribune ^
| March 6, 2004
| RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
Posted on 03/06/2004 7:54:32 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
My generation has never seen anything like this.It is exciting to be alive right now, isn't it?
How can anyone tell whether one of these changes will have any staying power or will just fail?
To: Scenic Sounds
"How can anyone tell whether one of these changes will have any staying power or will just fail?"
Ultimately they will fail. However, they may not fail in our short lifetimes.
2
posted on
03/06/2004 7:56:26 AM PST
by
raloxk
To: Scenic Sounds
RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR, homosexual
To: longtermmemmory
Is he? If so, he's what you call committed on this issue, I think. ;-)
4
posted on
03/06/2004 8:02:09 AM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
To: raloxk
never say die.
There are more of us than them.
This is going to make anyone who supports homosexual marriage UNelectable.
This makes the entire democrat party, a party of homosexuals.
Amendment Text:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 Please note: it does not mention homsexuals at all.
It baseically bans
"whatever-else-a-deviant-mind-can-think-of" marriage.
The could easily be called the polygamy ban.
It will also give us the 28th amendment. We have the internet, now we will all be able to push for this.
To: Scenic Sounds
>Each turn of events breathes new life into some old and familiar questions
Sure. When left wing nuts
fight for their stupid issues
it's democracy
being wonderful.
But when Christians struggle to
stop baby killing
reporters always
say they're like the Taliban.
The media sucks.
To: theFIRMbss
This article is apparently written from the viewpoint of an impartial observer who is simply enjoying the democratic process at work. Yet, no where in his references to the various mayors forcing the issue does he accurately report that they are breaking the law, undermining the rule of law in the process. I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment? The writer also brings up the question of how much federal authority is appropriate. Funny how we read nothing of the sort from writers like this "mainstream" writer, concerning the numerous other ways our national government exercises its massive authority, except from known conservative writers who we have to seek out. Bias? Yeah, right, there's no media bias.
7
posted on
03/06/2004 8:43:02 AM PST
by
liberty03
To: Scenic Sounds
By what authority does the federal government impose its will on the states? Do localities intent on defying federal mandates have a leg to stand on, or do the feds always get the last word? As is clear from the article, the judges have a say, but if the federal government really wants to trump the judges, they can write new law, if they want all the states to abide, they can write a constitutional ammendment. Even the supreme court cannot trump a constitutional ammendment, they can try but would be removed from office. Way to go Bush.
8
posted on
03/06/2004 8:44:35 AM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: longtermmemmory
It will also give us the 28th amendment.
It won't got out of Senate committee. And if it did, the Senate wouldn't go against what 40% of the voters want. And if it did....
For the whole story, please see
An Imperial Message.
9
posted on
03/06/2004 8:48:04 AM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: liberty03
I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment?
You raise a good point. Along those lines, what is your stance of John Ashcroft violating the Tenth Amendment by overriding the right to death laws in Oregon and the medical marijuana laws in California?
10
posted on
03/06/2004 8:52:12 AM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: Scenic Sounds
It's precisely because many of these judges don't have to stand before voters that they can advance the agenda of social justice. That's not their job. Their job is enforce the constitution and the law in so far as it does not conflict with the constitution.
Art. VI second and third sentences
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
ART
11
posted on
03/06/2004 9:12:26 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: Scenic Sounds
Let's hear it for activist judges. Without the third branch of government, we wouldn't have some of the greatest and most important victories of the civil rights movement.Like the Dred-Scott decision?
12
posted on
03/06/2004 9:14:41 AM PST
by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: liberty03
I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment? Probably not. Furthermore the Second Amendment doesn't need to be twisted or interpreted to invalidate nearly all gun laws. You have to really twist "equal protection" to say the homosexual marriages must be recognized. Homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose, regardless of their "orientation". Thus they are equally protected. The fact that they don't choose to exercise that option is irrelevant.
13
posted on
03/06/2004 9:15:42 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: KC_for_Freedom
Even the supreme court cannot trump a constitutional ammendment, I dunno, they seem to be doing a damn good job of it when it comes to the second amendment, and a fair job with res[ect to a couple of others as well.
14
posted on
03/06/2004 9:17:33 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: El Gato
I have not seen the Supremes position on the second ammendment, but I would like to see the administration reach a filabuster proof level in the senate for obvious reasons.
16
posted on
03/06/2004 10:17:22 AM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: liberty03
I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment?I think the writer is a Texan - Dallas News. Texans don't care much about Second Amendment issues.
17
posted on
03/06/2004 11:02:20 AM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
To: Silas Hardacre
LOL. Very nice. I think you're right - there's really no point in getting excited about any of this. The folks are just experimenting. ;-)
18
posted on
03/06/2004 11:07:53 AM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
To: Scenic Sounds
And when decrees do come, must they come only from elected officials or can they come from the courts, where judges particularly those who don't have to stand for election are sometimes better equipped than politicians to make decisions that are morally courageous? That, after all, is the whole point of judicial review. ohhhhkayyyy, then... I guess it is clear where this author stands on the enumerated powers of government. Agenda, anyone? All the rest of this article is obfuscatory prattle.
19
posted on
03/06/2004 11:44:56 AM PST
by
King Prout
(I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
To: little jeremiah; onyx; EdReform
gay agenda ping
20
posted on
03/06/2004 11:47:00 AM PST
by
King Prout
(I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson