Back to court
The California Supreme Court today said it would take up a challenge to Prop. 8, the gay marriage ban. But it declined to allow such marriages to continue pending a ruling.

« Medical records compromised | Main | Your turn »
Comments
Mike Huckabee, California's Supremes and 7-year old Emily Bear on "Ellen." A GLBT kinda day at clicky.
Something to please and piss-off everybody and I couldn't BE happier!
Posted by: NormaBates
|
November 19, 2008 06:34 PM
Ms Norma, you already pissed off many of us with your aborted campaign of keeping the legs crossed until Nov. 4. :)
Posted by: Cato
|
November 19, 2008 06:48 PM
Well, I'm sure that the brand of 'democracy' practiced by the courts in california will ensure that the will of the people is negated again. I have a feeling that they could vote till domesday and the homosexual lobby will ensure that the minority cancels out the will of the majority.
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 06:52 PM
Norman, you erased my 'hello message' to you. Was ist los? I'm shocked, pal, that you would ignore my kind message to you. The tutu was.....how shall I say it.....'cutzy'!
Your pal,
Strangelove
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 07:18 PM
But, Cato my darling: It WORKED!
Didn't it? I mean, I can't remember exactly what my legs-crossed campaign was supposed to accomplish other than voting out right-wingers. I'm a gal who lives in the present and looks toward tomorrow rather than driving through life with my eyes on the rear-view mirror . . . or whatever that cliché was I learned in Amway.
Alls I know is, I'm grateful for the recess, rest, rejuvenation, repairs and retread. As admirers have note recently, as if with one voice, "You feel like a new woman!"
P.S. Whilst I appreciate your respect with the "Ms." salutation, might I suggest you rethink your coupling of "aborted" and "legs crossed" in the same sentence?
Upsets trolls, love.
All my best.
Posted by: NormaBates
|
November 19, 2008 07:24 PM
"Well, I'm sure that the brand of 'democracy' practiced by the courts in california will ensure that the will of the people is negated again. I have a feeling that they could vote till domesday and the homosexual lobby will ensure that the minority cancels out the will of the majority."
Sort of like segregation, ay strange? And I'm sure you know something about it, considering you were an adolescent during Central High's integration. The world's come full circle, and we now have a black president-elect. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, we'll have a gay one? And while I'm trigger happy, how about in 100 years, an atheist?
Google "tyranny of the majority" and the "Bill of Rights" (formed based on the worries that minorities' rights will be violated by the majority).
Really, Mr. Cheatham, this is a confounding statement on your part. Too bad you won't live another 50 years. Maybe you'd come around on gays--just like you probably came around on integration (based on your statements about courts).
Posted by: JD
|
November 19, 2008 08:22 PM
If that damn court does they should be taken out and hung.
I don't think they'll over turn it.
JD I think hell would freeze over before a homo is ever pres.
Posted by: chasv
|
November 19, 2008 08:28 PM
oh, Norman bates has to shave every morning, huh, evening.. yeah.
Posted by: chasv
|
November 19, 2008 08:29 PM
"Upsets trolls, love."
Exactly, my dear eskimo pie. Isn't it great!
Posted by: Cato
|
November 19, 2008 08:45 PM
There are many who would say and fairly prove that we've already had our first "homo" President. It has been said that James Buchanan, our 15th President, who never married, was gay. There are reports he liked to dress like a woman. The White House workers called him Old Bess.
And then there are those troubling letters from Abe Lincoln who had a habit of sleeping in the same bed with men when his wife was out of town. At least one letter to another man contained the sentence....I can't wait to hold you in my arms again, Elmer. OK....I can't remember the other guys name....I'm sure it wasn't Elmer.
So chasv.......you're too damn late. Shove that up yer butt and salute the flag why don't ya.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
November 19, 2008 08:47 PM
Where do I send my check for the "homosexual lobby" and what's their "agenda"?
"The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform."
Alfred Kinsey
Posted by: Zatharus
|
November 19, 2008 08:53 PM
There goes that damn Constitution again...defending the rights of the minorities from the power of stupid people in large numbers.
I'm bookmarking this page. The day the Supreme Court sticks up for a consevative civil rights issue that isn't popular with the majority, I'll use it to show Strange why they should be drug out of the building and hung.
Damn democracy in a constitutional republic...sometimes leads to some sticky situations, doesn't it? In the words of many brilliant conservatives of the past 8 years, "Love it, or leave it."
Posted by: my mind's a razorblade
|
November 19, 2008 09:11 PM
There goes the Constitution again establishing law by the will of the majority. There goes the Constitution again establishing the right of free speech and the right to worship. There goes the Bible again saying 'you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.' I guess the truth of the will of the founding fathers and the will of the Heavenly Father just keep getting in the way of doing whatever we want to do.
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 09:25 PM
There goes the Constitution again establishing law by the will of the majority. There goes the Constitution again establishing the right of free speech and the right to worship. There goes the Bible again saying 'you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.' I guess the truth of the will of the founding fathers and the will of the Heavenly Father just keep getting in the way of doing whatever we want to do.
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 09:27 PM
There goes the Consitution again, telling federal judges to adhere to the Federal Constitution and uphold it when faced with State Constitutions or state laws that disregard it. There goes the Constitution again, explicity authorizing Judicial Review. There goes the Constitution again, stating, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And there goes Strange again, wrongly assuming that the Bible should guide the laws of a nation built on the idea that marrying politics and religion breeds corruption in both.
Posted by: my mind's a razorblade
|
November 19, 2008 09:38 PM
The Constitution clearly establishes the rule of law by the majority. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the individual against the rights of the majority. The problem that the homosexual has is that the Bill of Rights does NOT establish a a homosexual right. Capite?
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 09:56 PM
There's no such thing as a "homosexual rights." There are rights, period----and everyone has them. Gay aren't asking for "special" rights--they're asking the the same ones everyone has.
And while we're on this matter, please note, chasv and strangelove, that young people are largely supportive of gay rights. This is a LONG TERM change that will be happening, and like other fools of bygone eras, you'll be on the wrong side of history.
Anyways, that's the last time I feed a troll...
Posted by: JD
|
November 19, 2008 10:38 PM
Again, you need to understand the Constitution. There is no such thing as unlimited rights. The individual rights are ENUMERATED in the Bill of Rights. Are you saying that there is such a thing as 'pedophile rights'? You apparently do not understand the basics of Constitutional law.
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 10:44 PM
When the those young people become the MAJORITY then they will face the same problem. The Bill of Rights protects the basic enumerated rights of the minority. To deprive us of those basic rights when you become the MAJORITY you will have to betray the Constitution in order to impose your will as the Majority on those enumerated rights of the new minority.
Posted by: strangelove
|
November 19, 2008 10:55 PM
Didn't you guys learn from the last post on this subject? Feeding trolls only excites them... I learned the hard way 4 hours later... Never again...
But methinks strangey and company have been studying up from the IRD. Thier whole purpose isn't to become a more "bible believing" nation, but to keep another super activist like Martin Luther King Jr. from rising up. How, you ask? By keeping churches and people arguing about these "hot button" issues so that we're too busy feuding to organize. You want consperacy theories...here's a good one... do the clicky
Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
|
November 19, 2008 10:57 PM
sorry, try it again... click the blue or
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v22n2/church_seige.html
Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
|
November 19, 2008 10:59 PM
REF -- Norma Bates -- ABSOLUTELY AWESOME -- Thanks for the reference.
Just think -- only if George Bush had her 7 year old brains, poise, talent, compassion and communicative skills what a better president he would have been.
Never voted for the S----! But understand how embarrassed those that did must now feel! It would keep me awake at night knowing that because of my vote I contributed to the destruction of America as we use to know it!
Posted by: BWC
|
November 20, 2008 06:53 AM
Wow. Head to bed with the religionists spreading disinformation, and you wake up in the morning finding them still lying. In the name of God.
I'm with conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, when she says, "So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. . . . Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."
If Parker wants to hear some of the GOD-Party's lowest brows at work, she has only to scan these threads.
Posted by: MuddlingThrough
|
November 20, 2008 07:25 AM
"Again, you need to understand the Constitution. There is no such thing as unlimited rights. The individual rights are ENUMERATED in the Bill of Rights. Are you saying that there is such a thing as 'pedophile rights'? You apparently do not understand the basics of Constitutional law."
Well, strange, yes and no. They certainly not unlimited but they are not ALL listed in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment was added in case they forgot any. Essentially, this Amendment says any rights or liberties we forgot to list are not given to the federal government but are retained by the people.
Posted by: Cato
|
November 20, 2008 08:35 AM
Max its a waste of time to have sign in everytime.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Posted by: my mind's a razorblade
Homosexual are not people, therefore,they are not covered by anything, much less the US constitution! A dog might think he's human but he is not human, either, he's an animal!
And while we're on this matter, please note, chasv and strangelove, that young people are largely supportive of gay rights.Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
Hell, I mean, Hill, That's what you homosexuals have been trying to get done for decades..
How, by first taking the bible out of school, then God, then the ten commandments, then prayer!
The whole homo agenda for decades now is to acclimate the younger generation to your perverted and deviated lifestyles, but we will not stand by and let you continue it.
Hillbilly, Hell enlarges itself daily, that's daily; and more people go there than to heaven.
Have you been washed in the blood of Chirst.. is the blood applied to your heart...? not!
Posted by: chasv
|
November 20, 2008 09:52 AM
Chasv,
As much as I agree with the quote you attributed to me... I didn't say that, but wish I had. That being said:
If gays and lesbians are not human, then what pray tell are they? That shows your true thoughts more than anything else. How is it that you can profess to be a "good Chistian" and hate that much? I'm baffled by it. I'm also baffled that you insist on:
a) blaming me for taking the Bible out of schools, considering I wasn't even a gleam in my daddy's eye then.
b) Calling anyone who disagrees with you a homosexual, then using the hateful slang name. You show the true fruits of your spirit more with each poisoned post.
I refuse to discuss this with you further. You are a very hateful, dispicable person, and I will not associate with such as you until you can find a shred of humanity within yourself. Shaking the dust off my sandals and moving on, as it were. Here's your hat, there's the door what your hurry, don't let it hit you on the way out.
Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
|
November 20, 2008 12:14 PM
You are a very hateful, dispicable person, and I will not associate with such as you until you can find a shred of humanity within yourself.
Posted by Arkansas Hillbilly
Hillbilly I am offended by that statement.. I am NOT HATEFUL, but to you I may be dispicable since we can not see eye to eye on the most important issues; then you are dispicable to me, but I can live with it, lol.
I love everybody. If I didn't I would not waste my time telling all about whats wrong with our world, especially in this USA. But I do not think I am wasting my time unless God has already given some on here over to a reprobate mind. Then it would be a waste..
He said don't cast your pearls before swine for they'll turn and rend you again.
God is Good, Amen.
The blood of Jesus washes away all our sins, hallelujah.
Posted by: chasv
|
November 20, 2008 02:05 PM
So anyone want to start a pool as to when the US Supreme Court is going to be asked to try the case? My guess would be, once Prop H8 is overturned by the CA Supreme Court, it will go to the 9th Curcuit, who have a history of siding with people's rights. From there I can see a Supreme Court challenge coming, but I don't think they will hear it, instead defferring to the decision of the 9th circuit, which I think will still overturn the ammendment. Once that happens, all ammendments like Prop H8 will be overturned since a federal court will have decreed them unconstitutional. Well, I hope that's what happens anyway. Good luck!
Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
|
November 20, 2008 02:17 PM
I'll take May 2011.
Posted by: G
|
November 20, 2008 02:36 PM
That soon? I was thinking closer to October 21, 2011.
Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
|
November 20, 2008 03:40 PM