Red Alert!!!

[gcode]

California passed a proposition (Constitutional Amendment) by OVERWHELMING majority to state that a "marriage" is between a man and a woman. The state (read Democrats) refused to defend it in court and it was struck down at the State Supreme Court as "Un-Constitutional".

they very next day

In Cali, the constitution means what Dem judges say it means.
Every other interpretation is racist, sexist, bigoted or all of the above.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

California passed a proposition (Constitutional Amendment) by OVERWHELMING majority to state that a "marriage" is between a man and a woman. The state (read Democrats) refused to defend it in court and it was struck down at the State Supreme Court as "Un-Constitutional". Imagine that, the State Constitution was legally amended by due process, and the State Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.

And people wonder why I have such seething disdain for these activist court jurists jesters.

Perfect example of why the majority, even the OVERWHELMING (<emphasis hysterics courtesy of Nutboy  ) majority can be wrong, and why the courts are necessary. No doubt the overwhelming majority of southern voters were in favor of segregation in the 1950s, and slavery in the 1850s.

[beej]

Perfect example of why the majority, even the OVERWHELMING (<emphasis hysterics courtesy of Nutboy  ) majority can be wrong, and why the courts are necessary. No doubt the overwhelming majority of southern voters were in favor of segregation in the 1950s, and slavery in the 1850s.

that makes a case for outlawing abortion strictly on moral grounds.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

that makes a case for outlawing abortion strictly on moral grounds.

No, it does not. In fact, it does the opposite. Courts do not make judgements based on morality, they make judgements based on law.

[beej]

No, it does not. In fact, it does the opposite. Courts do not make judgements based on morality, they make judgements based on law.

judges make judgements based on a set of biases.

If they were making judgement strictly on law, there would be no difference of opinion.

[gcode]

they make judgements based on law.

there in no way you are that naive

[CNCAppsJames]

there in no way you are that naive

Surely you jest.

[CNCAppsJames]

You cannot view this attachment.
50% + 1 is required for passage.

In the PRK this is practically a landslide.

To equate a behavior/preference to involuntary servitude/slavery or racial inequality is pathetic. It's like comparing ANY American to Adolph Hitler... an individual who'd body count not only eclipses the Clintons, but everyone but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few others.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Incogneeto]

there in no way you are that naive

Naive?? No, Stoopid Affirmative.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

You cannot view this attachment.
50% + 1 is required for passage.

In the PRK this is practically a landslide.

To equate a behavior/preference to involuntary servitude/slavery or racial inequality is pathetic. It's like comparing ANY American to Adolph Hitler... an individual who'd body count not only eclipses the Clintons, but everyone but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few others.

Once again, you show just how ignorant and bigoted you are. At what age did you decide what sex you are attracted to? Notice I didn't ask at what age you decided you are attracted to women, because a: we have no idea what/whom you are attracted to, and b: it doesn't fucking matter.

Let's get this perfectly clear: it is not a choice. So yes, dictating who one can be with does draw parallels to involuntary servitude. And let's get something else perfectly clear: the majority has been, and will be again, wrong on many issues. You felt that way in 2020 when your guy lost the election, right?

[Del.]

Everything is a choice!

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Let's get this perfectly clear: it is not a choice. So yes, dictating who one can be with does draw parallels to involuntary servitude. And let's get something else perfectly clear: the majority has been, and will be again, wrong on many issues.

Bucky, I'll agree with you here - based on your comment history - that fundamentalist faith is not a good enough reason to stop people from marrying who they love, because that always seems to be the biggest argument against it. Unfettered promiscuity is the real enemy, and a real public health crisis. Things like plan B as contraception, and the devalued place sexual activity has in the world of hookup culture. Healthy, long-term relationships just aren't cool anymore.

I agree with you too that it's not a choice for some, and I got into it one time with an ex-buddy in pontificating what the actual differences are in brain chemistry or genetics that leads a person to be attracted to the same sex, or both equally. I was told my train of thought was problematic and genocidal, never spoken to again after that, for asking questions. My position remains that you can't say it's not a choice, and also not genetic. If you were "born this way", to quote Lady Gaga out of sympathy, then that is 100% DNA and maybe we can prove it one way or the other some day and close the debate.

[Smit]

You guys who think it's a choice should google some dick pictures. See if you can decide you could choose to want some of those dicks.

If you can't then the point is proven. If you find yourself wanting some of those dicks then you're already gay, or at least bi, or some combination thereof. Be it genetics or who knows what the fuck it is.

Pretty easy really.

[Smit]

It seems Del just figured out he was gay! 

[CNCAppsJames]

I'm genetically pre-disposed to speed. My mother and grandfather passed down the lead foot to me. I was born that way.

I should get a pass.