Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[daws101]

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

the senate was not in recess when it did it. thats why SCOTUS ruled against him

the pres is not perfect..

first thing you have said that makes sense.

ALL OF WHAT i say makes sense.
it's not the left or the democrats who expect him to be perfect it's the right that does...
besides it's the repubs that vowed to block and hinder him in every way possible.
that's about as un american as it gets.

Did the dems work with Bush? This partisan shit started with Clinton. Reagan and O'Neill knew how to work together and get things done. No one since has, although clinton and newt came close.

false ronny raygun's presidency was the genesis of the shit we're in now.

 

[Flopper]

It's time we replace these rogue judges. We don't want dictators deciding what is law.

Oh good the first retard showed up to prove the point you dont understand how our system works.

Blow me! I know how the system works. These are rogue judges deciding laws that should be left to the supreme court to determine. He a liberal, so of course he's going to rule in favor of liberal policies no matter if it goes against what the people have voted for. Winning the popular vote doesn't count unless it's in the Liberals favor.

Judge Edward Rubin who made the decision has served 15 years as a judge and was elected by people of Louisiana. Rubin is running for re-election unopposed.

that decision is being appealed. the rest of your post is bullshit.

Edward D. Rubin - Judgepedia

 

[daws101]

It's time we replace these rogue judges. We don't want dictators deciding what is law.

Oh good the first retard showed up to prove the point you dont understand how our system works.

Blow me! I know how the system works. These are rogue judges deciding laws that should be left to the supreme court to determine. He a liberal, so of course he's going to rule in favor of liberal policies no matter if it goes against what the people have voted for. Winning the popular vote doesn't count unless it's in the Liberals favor.

Judge Edward Rubin who made the decision has served 15 years as a judge and was elected by people of Louisiana. Rubin is running for re-election unopposed.

that decision is being appealed. the rest of your post is bullshit.

and like most bogus appeals it will be thrown out of court.

 

[Seawytch]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

 

[daws101]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

 

[dcraelin]

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.
Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.
The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

The language in Section 2 demonstrates, in part, who it was meant to apply too,.... and common sense should also. Also I have posted elsewhere how historian Charles Beard and others have postulated that some of the vagueness within the bill possibly was meant to be a benefit to Railroad corporations...the most powerful lobbyists of the day........and was an exercise in corruption. ....a john Graham has demonstrated that none of the honest purposes of the amendment couldn't have been accomplished without it...using the other civil war era amendments,13 and 15 and the Constitution itself......Ironic that an amendment, a large part of the surface purpose was meant to be a correction of past errors in Supreme Court precedent.....is now being proped up as some sort of testament of the courts infallibility.

Oh...I get it
Is that kind of like "Well regulated militia"?

Im not sure you do get it......and I dont get your post

 

[Seawytch]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

 

[Jroc]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

Defining marriage is not "anti gay" only in the minds if the militant gay activists

 

[Flopper]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

No matter what the issue, there will always be people that oppose it on philosophical or moral grounds. To them, the resolution of the issue is not as important as their opposition to it.

 

[Redfish]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

No matter what the issue, there will always be people that oppose it on philosophical or moral grounds. To them, the resolution of the issue is not as important as their opposition to it.

horseshit---------are people not allowed to hold different beliefs? are we all to believe what the all-powerful federal govt tells us to believe? do we have freedom of thought? speech? beliefs?

what makes your opinion superior to anyone else's? What the **** makes you liberals think that you can dictate basic beliefs of right and wrong to everyone else?

your arrogance is appalling.

 

[Redfish]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Actually most of the time they just talk complete nonsense.

I've had "Gay people shouldn't adopt because if a kid types in LGBT pride on the internet and then clicks images they'll get some not nice images" and that was within the last 24 hours.

I mean, I could type in "naked woman" and then find pictures much worse than that, does that mean women shouldn't adopt?

 

[Seawytch]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

Yes Fishy "they" should have the same rights..and they should have the same name. Civil unions would be just fine for heterosexuals. Change the name if you don't like us using marriage. Until then, we're getting married. 50% of Americans live in a marriage equality state.

And yes, if you are opposed to full marriage equality for gay partnerships, you're an anti gay bigot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

However you said that if the majority were in favor of gay marriage you would be too.

The question is what difference does it make to you whether a gay person can marry?

 

[Flopper]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

No matter what the issue, there will always be people that oppose it on philosophical or moral grounds. To them, the resolution of the issue is not as important as their opposition to it.

horseshit---------are people not allowed to hold different beliefs? are we all to believe what the all-powerful federal govt tells us to believe? do we have freedom of thought? speech? beliefs?

what makes your opinion superior to anyone else's? What the **** makes you liberals think that you can dictate basic beliefs of right and wrong to everyone else?

your arrogance is appalling.

Your rhetorical questions are inane but don't let that stop you. Rave on.

 

[Flopper]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

 

[MaryL]

Really? Homosexuality is a ...mental issue. A small, flaccid meaningless blip. Percentage wise, not worth note. Well, unless you factor in income level and how many lawyers and positive media they can buy. That sort of tosses out the idea of fairness. Lawyers like funding more than they do idealism or that stuff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

 

[dcraelin]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.

Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.


>>>>