We need to appeal this supreme court ruling on gay marriage

[woolfe9998]

I mean I guess you can try to force the issue by passing a law that directly contradicts it, then having that work it's way back to the SCOTUS. Whether or not they hear it is another question.

That's how Roe v. Wade got mitigated in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Which wouldn't be a legal "appeal," the term used by the OP. Then again, the OP was quite clearly trolling so I suppose it doesn't matter.

 

[MongGrel]

Those damned Liberuls !!!!

 

[zinfamous]

I don't disagree that judges above the local level should not be elected, but I think you're missing that the two parties now go for maximum ideological fidelity and relative youth, to get the most bang for their buck. Sometimes they don't even bother to nominate those with appellate experience. I agree with term limits though - no one should ever have any position for life. Personally I'd say one term, twelve years max, eight years preferred, no reappointments. Then perhaps SCOTUS wouldn't lag so far behind society.

I'm addressing that point exactly, which is the impetus to impose term limits.

It levels the ideological playing field when it comes to admin appointments. Once you reach equilibrium after such an overhaul--which I suppose would take several terms--you have the same number of necessary appointments per administrative term. The only difference in influence being a one term vs two term president. But, elections have consequences, amirite?

 

[IGBT]

the usual liberal crotch politics. what else is new.

 

[JSt0rm]

what else is new.

certainly not your insanity.

 

[nickqt]

certainly not your insanity.

I still find it amazing that it uses the sig that it uses.

Gas was $1.84 because the world economy had just collapsed. Hooray for low gas prices!

That's the intellect it's wielding when posting.

 

[zinfamous]

I still find it amazing that it uses the sig that it uses.

Gas was $1.84 because the world economy had just collapsed. Hooray for low gas prices!

That's the intellect it's wielding when posting.

lol. I never read his dumbfuck signature.

Gas was $4.50+/gallon the summer before Obama was elected, and, I think never dropped below $3 during the many years of Cheney Co.s long war for gas profits.

some people are really that stupid.

and they post here. And they just don't get it.

 

[IGBT]

I still find it amazing that it uses the sig that it uses.

Gas was $1.84 because the world economy had just collapsed. Hooray for low gas prices!

That's the intellect it's wielding when posting.

..happy to hear it lives rent free in that void where a brain should be.

 

[ivwshane]

I think it was attempting to use English? Perhaps it was trying to be funny.

 

[brycejones]

This thread needs more toaster loving. The OP obviously is a toaster lover.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This thread needs more toaster loving. The OP obviously is a toaster lover.

Here ya go

EDIT: huh, lost the picture, here's another then

 

[Fallen Kell]

Actually what I find quite "funny" in a sense are all these state and county officials who are saying they won't issue a state marriage license based on their religious beliefs, citing that they have a constitutional right of religious freedom. This is an absolutely absurd logic, and not protected by the first amendment in any way. The amendment specifically states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The freedom in this is a personal freedom. It is saying that the Government can not make laws that specifically target rights and freedoms of the people in the nation with respect to their religious beliefs, and/or promoting of one religion over another. It also means that the Government has to leave religion out of the things it does. So as a duely appointed representative of the Government (as these people are), they are thus themselves breaking the first amendment by claiming they supposedly have a personal right based on the first amendment, to disagree with gay marriage, but their personal right does not pass on to their official capacity as a Government representative, where-in they must follow the first amendment and NOT discriminate against anyone else based on their personal beliefs and must treat everyone the same under the law.

You can most certainly disagree with it at the personal level, but the moment you take that position and act on it in your capacity as a Government employee, you have no "leg to stand on", as your personal beliefs are trumped by the Bill of Rights which states that the Government can not impose or promote religious belief on anyone (the whole "Congress shall make no law" thing in the first amendment). They have the personal right to not want to issue the marriage license, but in doing so, they can no longer act as a government official and have the right to be fired and be prosecuted/fined/sued by the people that they harmed for not following the Bill of Rights and causing the Government to break the first amendment due to their actions as a government representative.

 

[pcgeek11]

c'mon man, let's go get gay married, you and I. I hear it's the cool thing to do now.

While I appreciate the proposal, I don't think my wife would approve.

 

[ivwshane]

While I appreciate the proposal, I don't think my wife would approve.

I'm guessing she'd be a lot happier than you think to see you go

 

[umbrella39]

certainly not your insanity.

Or his shit and run cowardice.

 

[nickqt]

..happy to hear it lives rent free in that void where a brain should be.

I'll take a vinaigrette with that word salad. Thanks!

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm guessing she'd be a lot happier than you think to see you go

Could be. She hides it well.

 

[ViperXX]

Homosexuality is wrong guys. I know most of the world agrees with me on this. It's wrong. Would you want your son or daughter to be a homosexual? No you wouldn't. We need to get a petition or go through the proper channels to fight this. I'm not alone on this.

Thanks

I agree.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Ahh, the homophobe agenda! Lets keep it going, to the ultimate goal. Down with equality, down with womans suffrage, hooray for slavery!

 

[sandorski]

Ahh, the homophobe agenda! Lets keep it going, to the ultimate goal. Down with equality, down with womans suffrage, hooray for slavery!

Back to the fields Serf!

 

[Iron Woode]

lol, that argument will change everybody's mind!

well, I'm convinced.

 

[joshuaclottey]

Why would I care if my son or daughter was gay??

I'm curious- how many more sons or daughters do you anticipate will decide to be gay as a result of this ruling?

I wasn't aware we were allowed to switch teams. Sounds like we all have some soul searching to do.

Let me put it another way. When you and your wife are expecting, you hope your baby is healthy. You hope he has a family of his own. You don't hope he becomes a homosexual. I'm as open minded as the next person, but nobody has convinced me that homosexuality is ok.

Why should we parade such an ugly thing? I won't. Most people wouldn't. Unless you support your children being homosexual, you shouldn't support it for other people.

 

[joshuaclottey]

Back to the fields Serf!

Or, let's go down your liberal open minded path. Equal rights for NAMBLA. Equal rights for beastiality. Equal rights for furries.

 

[nickqt]

Or, let's go down your liberal open minded path. Equal rights for NAMBLA. Equal rights for beastiality. Equal rights for furries.

You're an idiot.

 

[umbrella39]

Or, let's go down your liberal open minded path. Equal rights for NAMBLA. Equal rights for beastiality. Equal rights for furries.

Ah, I see you remembered your password for this ALTroll account again. Thanks for coming back, as you can see liberals and conservatives alike have all taken a huge shit in your thread. Thanks for making it! Would shit in it again!