Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

Oh I'm not saying what Newsom did hasn't affected the political landscape. I'm saying that this was going to happen even without Newsom's actions. It was already moving into play early last year even before MA ruled at the behest/threats of the conservative portion of the republican party.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Get your history straight. Bush brought this forward on January 28th, roughly two weeks before SF went into action.

Really? Bush came out and said he would actively promote and support the amendment before SF went into action? That's a new one.

 

[Natoma]

Bush didn't not incorporate this into his State of the Union address because the law had been broken, but because he didn't like that the MA court had revised their state law to something he doesn't approve of because of his personal, religious beliefs. Separation. . .church. . .state.

No, he said he had a problem with the process of activist judges redefining what the majority of the populace codified into law.

I love that "activist judges" moniker. Simply love it. Mislabel them, tar them, and make sure that they're seen not as upholders of constitutional law, but defiers of the people. Burn them! Burn the witches!

 

[John Reynolds]

No, he said he had a problem with the process of activist judges redefining what the majority of the populace codified into law.

And why exactly does he have a problem with this? In what way does a republican form of government supposed to equate to plurality rules? I ask this because my fundie co-workers think all laws should operate under plurality rule, whatever the majority of the population wants as law it gets. Apply that to the civil rights movement of the '60s and I wonder what would've happened.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, he said he had a problem with the process of activist judges redefining what the majority of the populace codified into law.

No, Russ...don't be so naive. It can't be as simple as what Bush said. can it?

 

[John Reynolds]

No, Russ...don't be so naive. It can't be as simple as what Bush said. can it?

You're really not so immature and stupid as to continue blatantly trying to push my buttons, are you Joe? Oh, wait, six times is the current count. Maybe you are.

 

[Natoma]

Get your history straight. Bush brought this forward on January 28th, roughly two weeks before SF went into action.

Really? Bush came out and said he would actively promote and support the amendment before SF went into action? That's a new one.

You really are naive Joe, or willfully blind.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, Russ...don't be so naive. It can't be as simple as what Bush said. can it?

You're really not so immature and stupid as to continue blatantly trying to push my buttons, are you Joe? Oh, wait, six times is the current count. Maybe you are.

??

 

[RussSchultz]

No, he said he had a problem with the process of activist judges redefining what the majority of the populace codified into law.

And why exactly does he have a problem with this? In what way does a republican form of government supposed to equate to plurality rules? I ask this because my fundie co-workers think all laws should operate under plurality rule, whatever the majority of the population wants as law it gets. Apply that to the civil rights movement of the '60s and I wonder what would've happened.

First off, its not plurality. Its majority.

Secondly, its the way our country is designed to work!

We make laws, vote on them, enact them.

If they contradict with our founding laws (the constitution), a Judiciary strikes all or part of them down. If a super-majority disagrees with the Judiciary, we have amendments.

They're all playing their designated role in the evolution of our legal system.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You really are naive Joe, or willfully blind.

Careful...John's on a mission, you know.

 

[John Reynolds]

You really are naive Joe, or willfully blind.

Careful...John's on a mission, you know.

Nah, I believe a person reaps what they sow.

 

[RussSchultz]

And yes, they're activists, in my mind, if they insist on inventing "rights" in order to obtain the particular moral outcome they want.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You really are naive Joe, or willfully blind.

Careful...John's on a mission, you know.

Nah, I believe a person reaps what they sow.

So, where's my delete button then

 

[RussSchultz]

Christ, you two should just stop responding to each other for a while. Its obvious you're both on a mission to piss each other off.

 

[John Reynolds]

And yes, they're activists, in my mind, if they insist on inventing "rights" in order to obtain the particular moral outcome they want.

The right to marriage is hardly an invention for an American citizen. What they're fighting for is the fair and equal application of existing, Constitutional laws. You know, all men are created equal. . .except, apparently, the tool grinders.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Christ, you two should just stop responding to each other for a while. Its obvious you're both on a mission to piss each other off.

Obviously, though it's not a fair fight when one gets to delete posts. I don't mind though....it's fun watching John in "power trip mode."

(This post will self-distruct in 5-4-3....)

 

[John Reynolds]

Christ, you two should just stop responding to each other for a while. Its obvious you're both on a mission to piss each other off.

But, but, but. . .he started it!!

A facetious post to show how immature all this is.

Truce, Joe. We've both been less than 100% courteous and civil so let's each wave a white flag for awhile.

 

[RussSchultz]

What they're fighting for is the fair and equal application of existing, Constitutional laws. You know, all men are created equal

Laws are being applied equally.

Nobody can marry a person of the same sex.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The right to marriage is hardly an invention for an American citizen.

And marriage between a man and a woman is hardly an arbitrary American invention as well.

What they're fighting for is the fair and equal application of existing, Constitutional laws. You know, all men are created equal. . .except, apparently, the tool grinders.

All men are created equal....doesn't follow that all relationships are.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Truce, Joe. We've both been less than 100% courteous and civil so let's each wave a white flag for awhile.

In all seriousness, I meant what I said in my deleted posts. If you would apologize (because I felt I was genuinely insulted, otherwise I would not have returned favor), then I will do the same.

Mutual Apology?