June 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Oh, you mean like when Pres. Bush was “selected” in 2000 by judicial fiat?

The American people are opening up to equal rights, and eventually gay people will be treated the same in marriage. Don’t forget that about 50 years ago, a majority believed that inter-racial marriage would destroy marriage. It didn’t happen the, won’t happen now.

“…supporting California’s democratic process to change their constitution to protect marriage …”

June 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I didn’t know that California was trying to outlaw divorce!

It’s widely believed, but completely wrong, to assume that extending marriage to same-sex couples will somehow threaten heterosexual marriage. The only threat to hetero-marriage comes from hetero’s who refuse to cherish their marriage and rush to get divorced at the first opportunity.

Last line above should read:

John McCain is not the friend of gays and lesbians and should NOT be entrusted with the keys to the Oval office.

Senator McCain seems to be oblivious to the primary responsibility of judges to make decisions whether a particular law violates the Constitution of the United States or of a particular state. That is exactly what the California Supreme Court did — it made a decision that California’s statute prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitution because it violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the California constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States.

John McCain is not the friend of gays and lesbians and should be be entrusted with the keys to the Oval office.

And the chance for a 3-way goes way up too!!! Pile on!!!

Freedom Rebel Says:

Prohibition has never worked and always creates a black market for organized crime.

I couldn’t agree more with you Wayne. Plus the corruption in the police departments are on the rise now it is hard to tell the good from the bad. The backroom deals they are making with our funding dollars has also got to go.

Marijuana Prohibition just another way to throw people in prison who are convicted of a non-violent crime. Plus it allows the government to throw people to the curb in government housing projects if someone has been convicted that lives at the residence.

Have a good day Wayne :)

I wonder then what decisions McCain believes judges should be making.

He thinks they should stick to redacting the first half of the 2nd Amendment.

They need to have a thread on the War on Drugs and what a complete waste of money it is…another way the government flushes our hard earned money down the drain.

The “War on Drugs” and especially the Marijuana Prohibition only makes money for criminal cartels and the Bush Family (repeated myself there).

Prohibition has never worked and always creates a black market for organized crime.

If judges aren’t supposed to make decisions regarding the equal application of our laws, I wonder then what decisions McCain believes judges should be making.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

likewise, I’m sure. Umm…as recompense, if you need to know anything about English Civil War re-enactment to support an argument about Iraq/Energy/Reefer Madness/Unitary Executive Power/Hedghogs, come to me first. :)

They need to have a thread on the War on Drugs and what a complete waste of money it is…another way the government flushes our hard earned money down the drain.

If they shouldn’t be doing their jobs, what should judges be doing?

likewise, I’m sure. Umm…as recompense, if you need to know anything about English Civil War re-enactment to support an argument about Iraq/Energy/Reefer Madness/Unitary Executive Power/Hedghogs, come to me first. :)

Thanks Freedom Rebel!

It’s hard to find good resources sometimes. I like this one. There stats don’t seem to be biased like other sources I have checked out. Have a good day :)

Pretty broad assumptions as you’ve written them (I’m sure atheists can be stupid too). As an ahteist myself I eschew all religious notions but some people find them useful and do good things by them. In my view it is all very selective however, and the attribution of ‘good’ and veracity and so forth to parent relgious organizations by those who declare themselves of a religious faith but then use ot for their own satisfaction is disengenous and that selectively may help support other selective attitudes and actions in other areas and choices in life that are inconsitent with their declared faith–in other words they hedge their bets between a personal form of absoultism and an organized form of absolutism, as it were.

Freedom…

What a great resource! Just added to my fav’s. Thanks

Your Welcome. Anytime I can be of help. :)

Good interesting fact’s you posted Unbelievable..I must agree with the educated marry later and divorce less as well as the non believer’s being in that group..Having been less educated and forced relegion at the beginning was atleast a part of the reason’s for divorce in my case…Not shifting blame here just thought’s…Less educated have fewer coping skill’s and fractured famalie’s do not offer safety net’s for people to grow and improve their knowledge…

Don’t think being against gay right’s is as much an age issue as relegious..I know many in my age group that have been working for their right’s along with civil right’s and women’s right’s hand in hand for 40 plus year’s….The relegious seem to think in a one line group.”I’ve got mine” to hell with every one else and the closeted group are the worst….. Thank’s all for posting..Blessings

We don’t have no shoes on

We ain’t worried ’bout THE GAY, none, though

When religious conservatives use this cliché, they usually miss to mention the part were judges making “these decisions” is a-ok as long as they agree with said decisions.

Otherwise, judges magically become “activists”.