Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.
The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.
Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.
Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.
Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.
Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.
They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.
WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.
WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
It has nothing to do with political correctness...in fact just the opposite. You want to deny people the rights you enjoy simply because they are not politically correct.They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
Hopefully when the Supreme Court gets done you and your idiot friends will find out that the Courts do NOT get to fabricate rights on a whim or for politically correct reasons.
They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.
WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
No
They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"
There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.
That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.
No
They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"
There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.
No
They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"
That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.No
They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"
No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....
Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together
If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling
That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.
No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....
Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together
If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling
