For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’
A Life of Hope
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle
Emotional Equations
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater?
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work
Birth of a Habit
Madly In Love With ME
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It?
Living A Meaningful Life
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama?
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 5:48AM #41 | |
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=TPaine;343842]The House has always been directly elected, as were state legislatures. Removing one layer in the election of Senators does not create a direct democracy. .[/QUOTE]
But it does go a long ways towards destroying a Federal Republic and replacement with a Unitary Republic...which cant help but morph eventually into a mobocracy. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 5:58AM #42 | |
|
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]Um, would THAT not be bending people to YOUR "will"???.[/QUOTE]
No that would be the Constitutional method of Judicial Appointment. [QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]They ARE ??? When did THAT happen?.[/QUOTE] There are 50 states..so it happened at 50 different times. The latest for my state was 1973 I believe. [QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]They bloody well SHOULD be. Or doesn't America HAVE freedom of religion anymore? Not everyone in every school is a Chtistian. Are there no Jews? No Hindus? No Muslims? No Sikhs? No Unitarians? No pagans? No wiccans? No atheists? Why the bloody heck should YOUR religion trump others'?.[/QUOTE] I didnt say "every school". I said "our school". There are no Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Unitarians, Pagans, Wiccans or atheists in our small school. I suspect there may be a Presbyterian..but that could be just rumor :) SO we do enjoy our freedom of religion and our protection against Congress passing any law to restrict our exercise of it. Do we see yet another reason liberals love open borders and unlimited immigration? Stalin used that same tactic on LAtvia and the Ukraine. I[QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]t's the way YOU want it. What about the other citizens? Don't they count anymore? What happened to THEIR right to freedom of religion?.[/QUOTE] They agree with me. [QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]Certainly not as often as it has been crushed by out of control 'religious' 'right' nutbars. Meanwhile, courts (aka "the judiciary") concern themselves with what is JUST, not what is popular (and certainly not with ony what YOU think is right)..[/QUOTE] They better concern themselves with laws rather than liberal ideals of justness. Right now there are no complaints from anyone with legal standing to do so. SO the judiciary has no role here. Its the law. [QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344175]Sounds like a thinly veiled threat of harm to those who believe differently than you. How sad.[/QUOTE] Yet it was written as an open promise. Go figure. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 6:01AM #43 | |
|
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=Do_unto_others;344214]Actually, it 'forces' a community to follow the Constitution which governs ALL citizens, not just the ones that go to your church.
You mean like the California legislature that voted TWICE to allow same-sex marriages? Or do you just mean the legislatures that agree with your 'religious' POV? Yada, yada, yada. Etc., etc., etc.[/QUOTE] The California legislature passed no such laws. No state has except under judicial threat. Gay marriage is banned in all 50 states by the will of the people of all 50 states. I am sure you know better than they....which is quite enough reason for me to hope for Constitutional protection from nuts like yourself. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 6:04AM #44 | |
|
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=TPaine;344340]Methinks Creed and those like him think this would be the perfect Supreme Court:
Pat Robertson (Chief Justice) D. James Kennedy James Dobson David Barton Gary Bauer Robert Simonds John Whitehead Jonathan Falwell John Hagee But to those of us who believe in religious and social diversity it would be an unmitigated disaster.[/QUOTE] Did you try Iran yet? let me know how it turns out..... |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 11:09AM #45 | |
JohnQ
Posts: 5,352
|
Peace!
------ Christian LIES wed Christian HATE......Begot a child....it’s named Prop 8! Supreme Court let it stand.....which means we can vote away the rights of others in our land. Sad as that may be...it hurts all of us.....not just me. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 11:24AM #46 | |
|
JohnQ
Posts: 5,352
|
Peace!
------ Christian LIES wed Christian HATE......Begot a child....it’s named Prop 8! Supreme Court let it stand.....which means we can vote away the rights of others in our land. Sad as that may be...it hurts all of us.....not just me. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 2:25PM #47 | |
Do_unto_others
Posts: 6,338
|
Me: "You mean like the California legislature that voted TWICE to allow same-sex marriages? Or do you just mean the legislatures that agree with your 'religious' POV?"
[QUOTE=Creedofcrusades;358085]The California legislature passed no such laws.[/QUOTE] This is demonstrably false. If the California State Legislature DIDN'T pass such laws, then WHAT WAS IT that the Governator VETOED - TWICE!!!??? [QUOTE=Creedofcrusades;358085]Gay marriage is banned in all 50 states by the will of the people of all 50 states.[/QUOTE] I guess Massachusetts is no longer a State, huh? [QUOTE=Creedofcrusades;358085] I am sure you know better than they.[/QUOTE] Well I apparently know better than you. [QUOTE=Creedofcrusades;358085]...which is quite enough reason for me to hope for Constitutional protection from nuts like yourself.[/QUOTE] You may consider me 'nutty', but I am no threat to you. What do you need "protection" from? |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 15, 2008 - 2:26PM #48 | |
|
Do_unto_others
Posts: 6,338
|
[QUOTE=Creedofcrusades;358088]Did you try Iran yet? let me know how it turns out.....[/QUOTE]
Better "try" Iran before W bombs the bejeezus out of it. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 16, 2008 - 1:26AM #49 | |
|
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=JohnQ;358463]from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090602076.html
Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, September 7, 2005; Page A01 SACRAMENTO, Sept. 6 -- The California Assembly voted Tuesday to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, making the state's legislature the first in the nation to deliberately approve same-sex marriages and handing a political hot potato to an already beleaguered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage While Massachusetts is the only state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,... So, apparently not all "50states". Gay marriage is coming to a state near you very soon. VT, NH, CT, NY, NJ, and CA are all close to having legal gay marriage. I have no doubt that at least three will do so prior to 2010[/QUOTE] It seems I havent been keeping up with the news from the California wacky front. The Assembly did pass it...and the Governor vetoed it. Why would even Democrats do that? Pandering is one thing but do they even want gay marriage? Turns out the answer is no. The Assembly couldnt override the veto thank God but more than that the vote was meaningless because of Proposition 22. The people of California succinctly stated their mind on the topic with this concise law...""Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I love it. Thats the law and the express wish of the people of California. It cannot be changed or modified by the Assembly without the permission of the electorate in another vote. That is basic to the inititative process. Initiative and referendum are state checks on the legislature and are used to constrain or bypass them. California Constitution. Article II Section 10 (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval. SO another attack on Democracy by liberals and homosexuals. This oen didnt work...so the gays have gone back to court. Remember, if you cant convince the people, go to unelected judges and oevrturn their efforts at self government. The other states you listed are in the same boat. They are fighting and have been fighting gay marriage for years. The people of those states have fought it as well. In Vermont a court ordered the legislature to pass a gay union bill and in Mass it was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Mass isnt over. It looks like the people will succeed in repealing the gay marriage law this fall. So it stands thus...not one single state has ever willingly allowed gays to pretend to marry. Not one. The people fight it every time it arises. Liberalism is basically totalitarianism. Have you ever stopped to wonder why liberals always have to use coercian and never win with ideas? |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 5 years ago :: Mar 16, 2008 - 12:34PM #50 | |
|
Creedofcrusades
Posts: 1,565
|
[QUOTE=JohnQ;358433]Are you really suggesting that there can only be one outcome?[/QUOTE]
I am suggesting that in this case we are obviously headed towards that outcome. It could possibly be controlled and work under another system of government but we now have a hybrid. A Constitution created to guide a Federal Republic which is sliding towards a unitary mobocracy. The safeguards written into the Constittuion assumed a Federal Republic and the safeguards have been removed piecemeal. And it is my firm belief that they are more important than ever because of what the liberals have done to the population. Before immigration was used to divide and cultural genocide practiced by the federal courts it was important to have flexibility and local control. Now they strains are becoming intense as we are seperate in vision and belief. So I dont care that a few nuts in San Francisco want to get married. I will leave them alone in their sick games if they will leave us alone here in Louisiana. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
No registered users viewing
