Do Republicans Want Being Gay To Be a Crime?

[buckeye45_73]

.

Amendments are the way to change the constitution, retard.

Go back and look through my posts and find where I said that the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, dummy. I said they interpret it. Which they do. According to you know, scholars and people who know shit.

The only shit they know is from their dicks after they fuck us over

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Amendments are the way to change the constitution, retard.

Go back and look through my posts and find where I said that the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, dummy. I said they interpret it. Which they do. According to you know, scholars and people who know shit.

The only shit they know is from their dicks after they fuck us over

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it was "activism" that overturned state's bans on interracial marriage. It was "activism" that stopped putting consenting adult couples in jail for consensual anal and oral sex. Seriously? We should have just kept banning interracial marriage and arresting couples for consensual sex until the rest of society "caught up"? Really?

Interracial marriage bans were struck down in the 60s. Interracial marriage did not enjoy majority support until the 90s. We should have waited until then?

I think that if you had to make the bigots keep justifying their bigotry, it would be harder for them to defend, yes.

Point is, it isn't the justices job to make laws. Today of all days, you should be happy about that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Go back and look through my posts and find where I said that the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, dummy. I said they interpret it. Which they do. According to you know, scholars and people who know shit.

Even Marbury only establishes the authority of the court to interpret the constitutionality of laws in application to the constitution, you festering pile of baboon shit.

The idea that the SCOTUS determines the meaning of the constitution itself is the definition of judicial activism and of tyranny.

As you ducked before, if the SCOTUS were to claim that "The right of the people to be secure in their person and papers" means that police can shoot those with Obama bumper stickers at will, is there any recourse? Or have the dictators spoken and there word (interpretation) is the law of the land?

Look, you're a Stalinist, you seek totalitarian dictatorship where men rule with an iron fist, I get it. BUT this nation was formed with checks and balances to stop any of the three branches of government from gaining absolute power.

You're too stupid to grasp why that matters.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Go back and look through my posts and find where I said that the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, dummy. I said they interpret it. Which they do. According to you know, scholars and people who know shit.

Even Marbury only establishes the authority of the court to interpret the constitutionality of laws in application to the constitution, you festering pile of baboon shit.

The idea that the SCOTUS determines the meaning of the constitution itself is the definition of judicial activism and of tyranny.

As you ducked before, if the SCOTUS were to claim that "The right of the people to be secure in their person and papers" means that police can shoot those with Obama bumper stickers at will, is there any recourse? Or have the dictators spoken and there word (interpretation) is the law of the land?

Look, you're a Stalinist, you seek totalitarian dictatorship where men rule with an iron fist, I get it. BUT this nation was formed with checks and balances to stop any of the three branches of government from gaining absolute power.

You're too stupid to grasp why that matters.

 

[waltky]

A wedding present for the Franks...

Congressman Barney Frank marries longtime partner
7 July`12 – U.S. Rep. Barney Frank has tied the knot with his longtime partner in a ceremony officiated by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Frank spokesman Harry Gural says the 72-year-old congressman married 42-year-old Jim Ready in a Saturday evening wedding at the Boston Marriott hotel in Newton. Gural says more than 300 friends, family and colleagues attended.

Frank, a Democrat who is retiring after more than three decades in office, represents the 4th Congressional District in southeastern Massachusetts.

Ready, of Ogunquit, Maine, has a small business doing custom awnings, carpentry, painting, welding and other general handyman services. He's also a photographer.

Source

See also:

New optimism about stemming spread of AIDS virus
7 July`12 WASHINGTON (AP) – An AIDS-free generation: It seems an audacious goal, considering how the HIV epidemic still is raging around the world.

Yet more than 20,000 international HIV researchers and activists will gather in the nation's capital later this month with a sense of optimism not seen in many years — hope that it finally may be possible to dramatically stem the spread of the AIDS virus. "We want to make sure we don't overpromise," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health's infectious disease chief, told The Associated Press. But, he said, "I think we are at a turning point." The big new focus is on trying to get more people with HIV treated early, when they're first infected, instead of waiting until they're weakened or sick, as the world largely has done until now. Staying healthier also makes them less likely to infect others.

That's a tall order. But studies over the past two years have shown what Fauci calls "striking, sometimes breathtaking results," in preventing people at high risk of HIV from getting it in some of the hardest-hit countries, using this treatment-as-prevention and some other protections. Now, as the International AIDS Conference returns to the U.S. for the first time in 22 years, the question is whether the world will come up with the money and the know-how to put the best combinations of protections into practice, for AIDS-ravaged poor countries and hot spots in developed nations as well. "We have the tools to make it happen," said Dr. Elly Katabira, president of the International AIDS Society, which organizes the world's largest HIV conference, set for July 22-27. He points to strides already in Botswana and Rwanda in increasing access to AIDS drugs.

But Fauci cautioned that moving those tools into everyday life is "a daunting challenge," given the costs of medications and the difficulty in getting people to take them for years despite poverty and other competing health and social problems. In the U.S., part of that challenge is complacency. Despite 50,000 new HIV infections here every year, an AP-GfK poll finds that very few people in the United States worry about getting the virus.

Also, HIV increasingly is an epidemic of the poor, minorities and urban areas such as the District of Columbia, where the rate of infection rivals some developing countries. The conference will spotlight this city's aggressive steps to fight back: A massive effort to find the undiagnosed, with routine testing in some hospitals, testing vans that roam the streets, even free tests at a Department of Motor Vehicles office, and then rapidly getting those patients into care. "These are the true champions," Dr. Mohammed Akhter, director of the city's health department, said of patients who faithfully take their medication. "They're also protecting their community."

MORE

 

[Charles_Main]

Do Republicans Want Being Gay To Be a Crime?

More


From one of our Resident Partisan

This one of the Left wing Verity.

 

[zonly1]

Another attempt from the left to divide the country.
We have gay pride week almost every Thursday but how dare we say hetero week.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, it was "activism" that overturned state's bans on interracial marriage. It was "activism" that stopped putting consenting adult couples in jail for consensual anal and oral sex. Seriously? We should have just kept banning interracial marriage and arresting couples for consensual sex until the rest of society "caught up"? Really?

Interracial marriage bans were struck down in the 60s. Interracial marriage did not enjoy majority support until the 90s. We should have waited until then?

I think that if you had to make the bigots keep justifying their bigotry, it would be harder for them to defend, yes.

No it doesn't, it just makes them lie more. Bigots have been "justifying" their bigotry for centuries and it has usually taken the COURTS to grant rights to minorities, not public opinion.

Point is, it isn't the justices job to make laws. Today of all days, you should be happy about that.

I am and will be again when the justices interpret our laws and strike down DOMA.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Another attempt from the left to divide the country.
We have gay pride week almost every Thursday but how dare we say hetero week.

Right. Because denying a minority the right to marry ISN'T divisive, right, fucko?

 

[rdean]

Do Republicans Want Being Gay To Be a Crime?

Well, yea. Everyone knows that. It's not "news".

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it was "activism" that overturned state's bans on interracial marriage. It was "activism" that stopped putting consenting adult couples in jail for consensual anal and oral sex. Seriously? We should have just kept banning interracial marriage and arresting couples for consensual sex until the rest of society "caught up"? Really?

Interracial marriage bans were struck down in the 60s. Interracial marriage did not enjoy majority support until the 90s. We should have waited until then?

I think that if you had to make the bigots keep justifying their bigotry, it would be harder for them to defend, yes.

No it doesn't, it just makes them lie more. Bigots have been "justifying" their bigotry for centuries and it has usually taken the COURTS to grant rights to minorities, not public opinion.

Point is, it isn't the justices job to make laws. Today of all days, you should be happy about that.

I am and will be again when the justices interpret our laws and strike down DOMA.

I think you have a better argument with DOMA. DOMA was unconstitutional from the get-go. Unless you repeal the full faith and credit close. DOMA was the equivlent to a flag-burning statue. They knew it'd get struck down, but they wanted to look like they were doing something.

My issue is with states that the courts have declared the right to marry. That's not a courts job, because that's legislating.