Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Kathianne said:Bully, you've lost it! :scratch:
Not at all, dear lady... Not at all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kathianne said:Bully, you've lost it! :scratch:
Bullypulpit said:Not at all, dear lady... Not at all.
ScreamingEagle said:Are you sure?
Californian voters supported Prop 22, a Defense of Marriage Act, March 7, 2000. It was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/marriagewatch.htm
Then along comes ONE judge in the pocket of the Gay Fascists/Commie-lites.
How can this one judge state Proposition 22 "unconstitutional" when all referendums have to pass a test that determines they are legally viable in the first place before they are put to vote before the people?
If trashing the peoples' vote isn't a form of tyranny, then what is?
ScreamingEagle said:Are you sure?
Californian voters supported Prop 22, a Defense of Marriage Act, March 7, 2000. It was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/marriagewatch.htm
Then along comes ONE judge in the pocket of the Gay Fascists/Commie-lites.
How can this one judge state Proposition 22 "unconstitutional" when all referendums have to pass a test that determines they are legally viable in the first place before they are put to vote before the people?
If trashing the peoples' vote isn't a form of tyranny, then what is?
musicman said:Bully:
Do you mean to imply, then, that the terms, "Republican" and, "judicial activist" are mutually exclusive?!
You've commited ideological heresy, old son. That's three bricks out of your little house in utopia.
Yawn Bully, frankly I couldn't care less....Bullypulpit said:Yawn...Still sounds like Dubbyuh and his merry band.
Avatar4321 said:I dont care what your opinion on the matter is. I dont care that you ignore all the rational basis we've discused many times. In fact, I dont have a problem with you advocating your points at all.
My problem is that this judge is violating the constitution by usurping the legislative branch of its powers. You may find an oligarchy preferable to a republic but i sure as heck dont. See I have this crazy concept that people should be free to create their own laws and decide whats right and wrong and not have judges oppress them.
Where in the constitution does it say that women can get an abortion?SmarterThanYou said:answer this question for me please.
where in the constitution does it say marriage is limited to members of the opposite sex?
I asked my question first, but to answer yours it doesn't. thats my point though. The constitution isn't about limiting what a citizen can do, it limits the authority that the government has over the people, is that correct? The rest of the limits come in the form of laws written by the legislature, like murder and rape. correct?KarlMarx said:Where in the constitution does it say that women can get an abortion?
SmarterThanYou said:I asked my question first, but to answer yours it doesn't. thats my point though. The constitution isn't about limiting what a citizen can do, it limits the authority that the government has over the people, is that correct? The rest of the limits come in the form of laws written by the legislature, like murder and rape. correct?
ok, i mostly agree with that. Now, how does anyone define WHAT is unconstitutional?gop_jeff said:And if the majority of people in a state vote for a law limiting the definition of marriage to a man-woman relationship, that woud then be in the bounds of the constitution.
SmarterThanYou said:answer this question for me please.
where in the constitution does it say marriage is limited to members of the opposite sex?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
OCA said:I spent most of my life in California, just got off the phone with some friends who said no way will this stand. Polls run at about 65-35 for putting a ban on queer marriage into the state constitution, petitions are circulating as of this writing. It will happen this November.
Avatar4321 said:I only see one problem with that. If the judge ruled that its unconstitutional in reference to the California Constitution that will work. If the Judge ruled that its unconstitutional in regards to the US constitution amending the California Constitution isnt going to solve the problem. It should be done but it still wont be a complete fix.
I say we need to start a ground roots effort to hold a constitutional convention. if a majority of the states want to hold one we can. And we dont have to consult the US Congress for that. That option to ammend the Constitution has never happened before. i say we do it and elect people like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and other guys to it that we know will fight for good conservative amendments. We can get some Clergy, Some lawyers, some doctors. men who will stand up for whats right. I think that may be the only option eventually.
ok, i mostly agree with that. Now, how does anyone define WHAT is unconstitutional?