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.
Some things to chew on, and get off my chest
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Really? Bush came out and said he would actively promote and support the amendment before SF went into action? That's a new one.
RussSchultz said:
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
Legend
RussSchultz said:
No, Russ...don't be so naive. It can't be as simple as what Bush said. can it?
Joe DeFuria said:
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.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
??
First off, its not plurality. Its majority.John Reynolds said:
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
Legend
Natoma said:You really are naive Joe, or willfully blind.
Careful...John's on a mission, you know.
Joe DeFuria said:Natoma said: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.
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
Legend
John Reynolds said:Joe DeFuria said:Natoma said: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
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.
RussSchultz said:
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
Legend
RussSchultz said:
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....)
RussSchultz said:
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.
Laws are being applied equally.
Nobody can marry a person of the same sex.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
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
Legend
John Reynolds said:
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?
