Ich habe schon Pferde vor der Apotheke kotzen sehen.
Ya gotta like how the left twists what the constitution really means. If they are not ignoring it outrightShow you where the Constitution gives this right? Are you familiar with the equal protection clause? Ever heard of it?
I'm not the one thats seeing things from a narrow perspective here. I didnt grow up in a 1 party state where the educational system was dominated by far left wing thought. Where having a difference of opinion can get you called all kinds of names villified as a hater and in places like Hollywood and academia you will not be given a job cause you dont tow the leftist line. I'm sure you are a nice enough guy but I think you may want to consider the possibility that its you the one that is being lied to and propagandized. Some of us see it so clearly and some of us are oblivious to what this corrupt progressive authoritarian goverment is lying about.I think you need to stop listening to the right-wing radio propogandists. It is obvious from reading your post here that they have you by the hook and are just reeling you in. Pick up a newspaper, read a little and don't rely on what the blowhards are paid to tell you.
Last edited by Iron Yank; 01-14-14 at 11:02 PM.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
Not giving a **** about the rule of law and pretending imaginary rights are in plain English documents = "the good guys?"
While contracts should be freely made between consenting adults, this is a matter for the legislature. The courts pretending the Constitution says anything about this whatsoever is obscene and absurd. It's an act of boldface lying to the public.
It is a matter for the courts to overturn an unconstitutional law. Under equal protection, the burden is on the state to justify its discrimination.
Provide that state interest.
You want to talk about rule of law? You're the one defending an unconstitutional law under some guise of states' rights.
One of you will end up here next!
The hallucinations of others is not much justification when talking about the written word and the rule of law. Why should I care about "state interest" when there is nothing in the text about any such thing?
You want to pretend that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was written - written as it was, chiefly in regard to the practices of slavery like its peers the 13th and 15th - it was intended and in fact did apply to gay marriage, that gay marriage has been an official constitutional right since 1868, despite not being explicitly stated as such.
Okay. Show me some indication of the authors of the 14th amendment protesting the absence of legal gay marriage since apparently every state was "violating the Constitution" ever since 1868, as you are claiming. Honestly, this is like pretending executions are "cruel and unusual" by Constitutional standards despite them being a common punishment in 1791, when the 8th Amendment was ratified... It doesn't logically add up.
I mean, again, sure, I don't think anyone should be forbidden from making such a contract with whomever they like, regardless of their gender, but to pretend the text says something it doesn't and then to force such hallucinations on others remains tyrannical absurdity.
Last edited by JayDubya; 01-15-14 at 10:38 AM.