Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read that radical pro-life organizations from out of state invested a lot of money to oust those three judges. The pro-lifers are really not the brightest.
Fairly typical. California's Prop 8 was also spear headed by out of state religious organizations. Mormons, of all people. Many conservative Christians are about two steps ahead of the Middle Eastern way of thinking and obsession with sex and chastity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Their actions will lead to more HIV and STD infections among gay and ultimately also straight people as marriage leads to stronger ties and commitment, thus fewer changes of partners, thus lower risk of infection.
The argument that gay sexual practices contradict god's will are also ridiculous as a lot of straight couples have the same practices.
Also the argument that the goal of marriage is reproduction is odd. Makes me wonder about all those straight couples who never have kids because they don't want to or are unable to.
Andrew Sullivan wrote a compelling piece about the "conservative argument FOR gay marriage" that touched on many of these same points:
Most conservatives, however, are not quite mature enough to develop past the "eww, icky" stage, so their contributions to the debate are about as useful as a five year old. Unfortunately, it's endemic. Then we wonder why so many Americans seem so easily fooled?
This vote HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE. IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH JUDCIAL ACTIVISM.
Isn't it the task of a supreme court to decide on problems arising from different interpretations of laws and maybe even the constitution?
The fault lies with the federal supreme court and lawmakers in Washington, they should simply clarify that issue once and forever, in line with the constitution etc. and not with radicals' opinion.
The person who you criticized for mixing wheat with new world crop of corn is CORRECT that the bible would PROHIBIT the mixing of corn and wheat.
seriously.
the bible does not mention corn even a single time. just like i said.
and corn is never planted in a vineyard. nor is wheat.
Quote:
"Vineyard" is obviously a translation of a translation of a translation of an ancient book. Mind you, the version most American protestant denominations use was commissioned by bisexual King James, so please stop being so literal. Maybe it means the modern equivalent of a grape vineyard, maybe it has a broader meaning of farm or garden.
Isn't it the task of a supreme court to decide on problems arising from different interpretations of laws and maybe even the constitution?
The fault lies with the federal supreme court and lawmakers in Washington, they should simply clarify that issue once and forever, in line with the constitution etc. and not with radicals' opinion.
Someday, most likely when the boomers are almost gone, it really won't be an issue.
Since so many boomers are also dead set on health reform and like being rejected by or denied coverage from health insurance companies, they might not be around for as long as they otherwise would.
the bible does not mention corn even a single time. just like i said.
So you're being extremely literal?
Where does the bible say that gay marriage is prohibited, then? Only "laying" with another man, right? The two are mutually exclusive, no? And what if you never "lay" with another man when you have sex, but always do it standing up?
Isn't it the task of a supreme court to decide on problems arising from different interpretations of laws and maybe even the constitution?
In states where voters choose whether or not to retain judges it is their prerogative to remove them if they do not agree with their history of rulings. The vote has nothing at all to do with the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Again, the power remains in the hands of the people and not with the government, as it should be.
Isn't it the task of a supreme court to decide on problems arising from different interpretations of laws and maybe even the constitution?
The fault lies with the federal supreme court and lawmakers in Washington, they should simply clarify that issue once and forever, in line with the constitution etc. and not with radicals' opinion.
Interpretation - correct.
The "interpretation" of Iowa law was beyond the stretch of the imagination. That is the problem with judicial activism.
The citizens of Iowa were quite clear. They do not want judges creating law and would prefer that laws be passed the old fashion way- through the legislature. In that regard, the citizens have SOME say in the laws that govern their lives. If that is not true, we are no longer living in a republic.
EVERYONE should oppose judicial activism- liberals and conservatives- if they value thier liberty.
'Don't tell me words don't matter!' - barack h. obama
Quote:
Where does the bible say that gay marriage is prohibited, then? Only "laying" with another man, right? The two are mutually exclusive, no? And what if you never "lay" with another man when you have sex, but always do it standing up?
I mean, hell, if we're being literal....
i agree. the bible says nothing about gay marriage being prohibited. a sexless gay marriage should slide right under the radar, biblically speaking
In states where voters choose whether or not to retain judges it is their prerogative to remove them if they do not agree with their history of rulings. The vote has nothing at all to do with the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Again, the power remains in the hands of the people and not with the government, as it should be.
And based on which criteria do they choose whether or not to retain judges? On their opinion, not necessarily on their knowledge of laws or the constitution.
I find it worrisome if people decide whether to keep our oust judges depending on their rulings. Sounds like the rule of the mob.
The judicial branch interprets laws. Sometimes it is unpopular. If judges ruled based upon popularity then the south would still be segregated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
