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.
That's the most progressive neighborhood ever. I approve!
It's actually a nice quiet neighborhood. Initially when the development was built a lot of retired folks moved in, but it wasn't a retirement community, and as it has grown there is quite a mix of people. Even with being an HOA we don't have too many issues. The reason the meth head was popped, was he was a renter, had a lot of traffic at all hours of the day and night, let his kids run around without supervision, and p***ed off one of his neighbors who was a board member, and truly quite the busy body. Let's put it this way, between myself, my next door neighbors, and the neighbor down the road that hangs out with us, we watch each others back. Not to mention, given both of them are retired, they would never stand for any shady stuff going down in plain sight. Let's put it this way, someone has to practically die for the cops to come cruising through our neighborhood. Of course too, we have cops from and a dispatcher from one of the next towns over that live in the neighborhood too, so that could also have something to do it. I'm not sure that my neighborhood is progressive. I can tell you that I along with my next door neighbor identify as libertarians, and the neighbor across the way is more of a republican/libertarian. As for the lesbian girl, we're not really sure what her politics are, and really don't discuss it much.
True, but what is the likelihood of a either of those happening over same sex marriage?
Probably low, but what you two aren't grasping is that the inactivity of the other branches doesn't signify anything. In other words, what Obama is doing is also unconstitutional, but nobody in the legislature or judiciary is lifting a finger. To you, that means it's legal ...and in a technical sense, you're right. But to me, it's still unconstitutional. You think that if the Supreme Court does something, the fact that they did it makes it "constitutional," which is patently laughable and false.
That's actually not true, either. In fact, it's funny because after gay marriage passes, nothing actually changes. It's not like gay people are like "whew, finally, we can adopt someone, so let's go out and do it!!" Or "wow, now I can visit you in a hospital, which for some reason I couldn't before, although I'm not sure how that works!!" Those were all manufactured issues, if you're being honest.
Tell that to Edith Windsor. She had to pay over $600,000 in estate taxes because her marriage was not legally recognized.
Tell that to the couples that are not allowed to see their partners in the hospital.
Tell that to the couples that are dealing with these very real issues every day.
That's actually not true, either. In fact, it's funny because after gay marriage passes, nothing actually changes. It's not like gay people are like "whew, finally, we can adopt someone, so let's go out and do it!!" Or "wow, now I can visit you in a hospital, which for some reason I couldn't before, although I'm not sure how that works!!" Those were all manufactured issues, if you're being honest.
Absolutely not! The court cases about this are all about being denied a partner's pension, or being kicked out of a hospital because you are not kin, or being unable to adopt jointly with a partner. These are real issues that make real people's lives hell.
On the other hand, if you are being honest, you will recognize that you don't give a crap about real live people and the injustices they face, because you are more concerned with forcing people to use one single word the way you want it used...
It's actually a nice quiet neighborhood. Initially when the development was built a lot of retired folks moved in, but it wasn't a retirement community, and as it has grown there is quite a mix of people. Even with being an HOA we don't have too many issues. The reason the meth head was popped, was he was a renter, had a lot of traffic at all hours of the day and night, let his kids run around without supervision, and p***ed off one of his neighbors who was a board member, and truly quite the busy body. Let's put it this way, between myself, my next door neighbors, and the neighbor down the road that hangs out with us, we watch each others back. Not to mention, given both of them are retired, they would never stand for any shady stuff going down in plain sight. Let's put it this way, someone has to practically die for the cops to come cruising through our neighborhood. Of course too, we have cops from and a dispatcher from one of the next towns over that live in the neighborhood too, so that could also have something to do it. I'm not sure that my neighborhood is progressive. I can tell you that I along with my next door neighbor identify as libertarians, and the neighbor across the way is more of a republican/libertarian. As for the lesbian girl, we're not really sure what her politics are, and really don't discuss it much.
So ...you discuss her lesbianism, but not her politics because that's the touchy subject? (I kid, I kid.)
Probably low, but what you two aren't grasping is that the inactivity of the other branches doesn't signify anything. In other words, what Obama is doing is also unconstitutional, but nobody in the legislature or judiciary is lifting a finger. To you, that means it's legal ...and in a technical sense, you're right. But to me, it's still unconstitutional. You think that if the Supreme Court does something, the fact that they did it makes it "constitutional," which is patently laughable and false.
And equal protections of the law is in no way unconstitutional. In fact it is right there in black and white IN the constitutional.
Probably low, but what you two aren't grasping is that the inactivity of the other branches doesn't signify anything. In other words, what Obama is doing is also unconstitutional, but nobody in the legislature or judiciary is lifting a finger. To you, that means it's legal ...and in a technical sense, you're right. But to me, it's still unconstitutional. You think that if the Supreme Court does something, the fact that they did it makes it "constitutional," which is patently laughable and false.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. So yes, their rulings are by definition Constitutional since they decide the meaning of the Constitution in practice.
Whether their decisions/rulings are correct is the issue here, but that's not a matter of Constitutionality.
The President and Congress can do things that are unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court can say what they're doing is unconstitutional, because those two branches are not the interpreters of the Constitution.
And equal protections of the law is in no way unconstitutional. In fact it is right there in black and white IN the constitutional.
That's interesting, because those on the left have a very poor track record in terms of being able to read the Constitution and understand what it means. They're always inserting their opinion of what things SHOULD mean.
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.
