- "All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God." ~ Voltaire
Well, The Democrats and five turncoat Republicans have confirmed Lesbian Liberal activist lawyer Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court of the U.S. So now, opponents of Proposition 8 out there in breakfast cereal land* have another Liberal activist vote on the bench.
I suppose they will celebrate with another shameless, hedonistic, pornographic carrot-in-the-butt parade.
A Liberal activist judge has ruled that the voters of California unconstitutionally (how does one "unconstitutionally" vote?) voted against the oxymoronic same sex marriage with their overwhelming defeat of the proposal, and now the Senate has sealed the deal by confirming a sexual deviant to the highest court in the land.
Personally, I think its all over. The Supreme Court, with Kagan on board, will undoubtedly uphold the aforementioned liberal activist judge's ruling. Conservatives might as well pack up and look for another battle to fight.
Now, I will re-iterate how I personally feel about same sex marriage:
I don't care what the homos do. If they want to marry, let them. I don't see how any decision they make affects me either negatively or positively, provided they leave me and all other non-homos alone. They can float their boat in the port of their choosing.
I am, however, opposed to special rights for homosexuals, but the way I see it, allowing them to marry each other if they want to does not constitute special rights. If a man and a woman can marry, two men or two women should expect that same right, no matter how disgusting the mental picture it brings to mind.
I don't believe homosexuals should be afforded any rights just because they choose to be perverts. I believe they should be afforded the same rights as every other American citizen, and none extra.
Now, if they expect me to accept them as normal and natural, they can forget that. I don't accept them as normal human beings. I consider them abnormal sexual deviants.
I can respect them for their contributions to society, arts, and business. I can respect them for their intellect, their humor, and above all, as living human beings with basic human rights.
But I do not respect their perversion and their conscious choice to be deviant.
The damage is done. Elena Kagan has been confirmed. Only time will tell how adversely this will affect America in the years to come.
*California: Full of flakes, fruits, and nuts. Like a breakfast cereal.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Homos Score 2 Big Victories
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
uGH!!!
Hmm,where to start? OK, first of all you refer several times to "liberal activist judges" when one of the most "activist" courts in history sits today consisting of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.
You refer to Justice Kagan (I know I'm jumping the gun because as I write, she has probably not been sworn in) as a Lesbian when she has denied it and there is no proof that she is.
"how does one vote unconstitutionally?" Easy, they vote to ban ownership of handguns or sporting rifles. They vote to deny newspapers the right to print articles criticizing elected officials. Etc.
You keep referring to certain people as sexual deviants practicing perversion. I'm curious as to what perversions you think are being practiced by them that normal, healthy heterosexuals don't practice as well.
How does replacing Justice Stevens with an arguably more centrist justice change the balance of the court? Even if she weren't more centrist, she still wouldn't change the balance.
"I believe they should be afforded the same rights as every other American citizen, and none extra."
And there you go. You've made the exact argument that contradicts everything else in your post. A "right" is a "right" regardless of how many people vote against it. A "right" is a "right" regardless of who you are or who you love.
"Personally, I think its all over." Personally, I think you are beginning to realize that same-sex marriage will be legal everywhere in your life time. All you need to do now is realize that none of them gives a shit whether you accept their "deviancy" or not. And not a single one of them wants to make your granddaughter a "homo" either. They just want your granddaughter to be able to marry whomever she loves when the time comes.
Liberals have a lot in common with homosexuals, since they pull rights out of their rectum. Even "gays" think homosexuality is a perversion. Why do they call heterosexuals "straight?" Obviously, because homosexuality is twisted.
LR, do you have the right to marry?
None of us have a Constitution right to marry. Its not mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution and marriage have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Marriage is defined and governed by the states.
EVERYONE has the right to marry. and NO ONE has the right to marry someone of the same sex. That sounds like equal protection under the law.
Just because an individual chooses not to do something they have a right too doesn't mean society has to form some alternative right.
I got your Constitution right here:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"EVERYONE has the right to marry."
Where is this written?
"NO ONE has the right to marry someone of the same sex."
Where is this written?
Denial of the right to marry someone of your own choosing when others can is denial of due process of law and equal protection under the law UNLESS it can be demonstrated that there is a compelling reason for the state to deny such rights.
No such compelling reason exists in the case of same-sex marriage. Therefore to deny the right is unconstitutional.
Jim, since you live in the breakfast cereal state (I don't know if you're a flake, a fruit, or a nut) I can't take anything you say seriously.
Your opinions are as important to me as the first person thrown off the life boat.
Still didn't see marriage mentioned in the 14 Amendment. Since it's not there its up to the state. California voted to not allow gay marriage. The federal government overstepped its powers by mandating something that was not in the Constitution.
Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution never gave the federal government the power to regulate or de-regulate marriage. It shouldn't have even been to federal court.
Of course Jim I'm sure you wouldn't let something like the Constitution get in the way when legislating law from the judicial branch.
Jim,
If you're saying that "everyone has a right to marry" is not in any constitution, then what the hell right are they being denied? The reality is that to commit one's self to another, no matter who that is, is not dependent upon state sanctioning. The state has determined that traditional marriage is worthy of support and encouragement. The state is the people and until they decide that other unions are equally worthy of support and encouragement, then what homos are doing is insisting that other people see things their way and hoping to force that through the courts. Their argument is to insist that everyone else accept their perversion as normal and they intend to force that down the throats of the other 70% of the country that votes against them wherever they have not been denied the actual and legitimate right to vote on it. They are intolerant of the opinions, beliefs and desires of the majority of the nation. That constitutes an attempt to gain "special" rights. There is no Constitutional protection that grants every happiness, but only the pursuit of it.
As to compelling reasons, you deny such as does every enabler. Don't pretend they don't exist. They've been presented in depth before. Go look them up again and actually read them.
As to other inanities, I don't know about Kennedy, but what exactly has been "activist" in any of the opinions of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas? Kagan WILL be activist because she believes that the role of a justice is to shape law rather than to interpret it as it is written and as to how it was intended by those who crafted it. This is apparent in her holding up that Israeli justice as her "hero". I think I've explained this to you before. No one holds up someone as a hero and does not try to emulate that person. That would be like saying, "I don't act or think in any way that Hitler did, but he's my hero." Does that make sense to you?
"I'm curious as to what perversions you think are being practiced by them that normal, healthy heterosexuals don't practice as well."
They do it with people of the same sex. That's what makes them perverted. The actual sexual practices might be perverted even with the opposite gender, but it's that desire to do it with someone of the same sex that is the greater perversion or deviancy. That should be obvious.
"what the hell are they being denied?"
Answer: the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Also equal protection of the law. See Amendment 14 of the US Constitution:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If heterosexual couples get privileges and immunities such as tax benefits, visitation rights, etc. and homosexual couples don't, that's abridging the rights of those citizens.
"The state has determined that traditional marriage is worthy of support and encouragement." So what?
"Their argument is to insist that everyone else accept their perversion as normal and they intend to force that down the throats"
This is absolutely false. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate your bigotry but I don't have to accept it. Nobody cares whether you think a homo is a pervert or not. They don't. They really don't give a shit what you think. They simply want the privileges and immunities guaranteed to them by the 14th Amendment. Those aren't special rights. They are everyone's rights.
I'm not going to look up YOUR compelling reasons. That's absurd. You can provide, I'm sure, any study that will claim this or that compelling interest, but they aren't supported by reality and the defendants in the subject case could not provide any.
The Robert's court has ruled more laws unconstitutional and reversed more precedent than any other court in decades. THAT is judicial activism.
"Kagan WILL be activist because she believes that the role of a justice is to shape law rather than to interpret it as it is written and as to how it was intended by those who crafted it."
Your supposition. You have no evidence of this.
"I think I've explained this to you before. No one holds up someone as a hero and does not try to emulate that person."
I think Superman is a hero and yet I've never tried to fly or stop a bullet or a speeding train. I think Alvin York was a hero, but I'm not a pacifist.
Your statement is absurd. "That would be like saying, "I don't act or think in any way that Hitler did, but he's my hero." Does that make sense to you?" No because that, too, is absurd.
"That should be obvious." Not really.
"I think I've explained this to you before. No one holds up someone as a hero and does not try to emulate that person."
I think Superman is a hero and yet I've never tried to fly or stop a bullet or a speeding train. I think Alvin York was a hero, but I'm not a pacifist.
Your statement is absurd. "That would be like saying, "I don't act or think in any way that Hitler did, but he's my hero." Does that make sense to you?" No because that, too, is absurd.
"That should be obvious." Not really.
You can say it 6 more times, Jim, it doesn't make it a fact.
Great argument, Mark. But the first time makes it a fact.
Jim, do you have the right to vomit? Why aren't you campaigning for rights for bulimics?
You don't get to call my favorite blogger names, Jim. Next to you, LR is a towering intellect.
Jim's sick twisted "reasoning" makes me want to vomit.
I actually removed, or meant to remove the "offending" characterization because I knew you'd have a shit fit if one of your own was so labeled. Thought I had and replaced the post. Oh well.
"Jim, do you have the right to vomit? Why aren't you campaigning for rights for bulimics?"
These are the words of a "towering intellect"? My response was:
That's it?
There are no laws against bulimia.
TR provides no reasoning, "twisted" or otherwise.
Nor are the any laws against homosexuality, except Biblical laws.
So, this seems to be devolving into nonsense. I've given you the exact language in the Constitution that makes my argument. You've given me bulimia. Mark is so proud of his lifeboat shtick he's using it everywhere. Edwin is confused about whether or not rights are given at the state or federal level. Apparently he thinks the rights in the Constitution apply only at the federal level. Oh, except Amendment 2. Marshall, just like at his own blog, is obsessed with what people do with their sex organs. Lone Ranger equates 14th Amendment rights with vomiting. And Mark thinks laws should only be based on the Constitution, not case law, not international law, and not treaties (which are allowed in the Constitution by the way). Oh except for the Bible.
Jim, may your quest for "separate but equal" rights fail as bad as it did the last time democrats tried it.
Have you ever been in the embarrassing situation where everybody got the joke and you didnt'? Then, eventually, you get it, duh, and wonder at how you could be so clueless? And wonder, if everybody who was in on the joke, was secretly laughing at you?
So I confess. I didn't see it.
I DID wonder how "Jim" could be so seemingly articulate, yet espouse such nonsense. I even tried to find his blog. But I get it now. "Duh!"
"Jim" is a sock puppet of Mark's -- a literary foil used to show us how demented the libtards are...
I'm right, right?
Jim is a real person, I assure you. He is very elderly, never been married and has lived on welfare all his life. He was lobotimized as a child back when it was legal, for a multiple personality condition. He has made a remarkable recovery and has worked very hard at gaining back his motor skills and mental abilities over the years. Unfortunately, the only personality that survived was that of a five year old girl who thinks she's possessed... We here at the home monitor him carefully and cruel comments about him really hurt his feelings even if he doesn't show it. Please be a little lenient about him and his ravings. Thanks. --Nurse Dave
Sorry, Jim. Rant on, old fellah!
More excellent arguments, guys!
We aren't arguing, Jim. We are saying we don't like the way America is becoming wussified by the homosexual lobby. And, we don't like what the Homosexuals are trying to do to this country.
If they had their way, gay rape would be legal.
And you support them. Way to go, Jim.
"If they had their way, gay rape would be legal. "
What a load of steaming, smelly horseshit.
What I do support is that you stop raping your daughters.
The Post...the comments! What a fun read! really. :)
Should have stopped back here sooner, but in the event that Jimmy reviews this post, I'll respond to his remarks now, though quite late.
First of all, I don't obsess over how people use their private parts. I obsess with the obsession of others and their demands on the rest of society about how such obsessions should be viewed, tolerated and accepted. And they definitely seek acceptance through the law forced by judges of their liking.
Secondly, you haven't supported your charge that the smart side of the SCOTUS (that would be Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas) have ruled against the intent of the Constitution and those who wrote it. THAT would be activism.
I didn't say that ANYONE considered a hero provokes actions by people. I stated that KAGAN'S here will compel here to emulate him. That's a distinction you willfully ignore. I recognize that Sgt. York is a hero. That doesn't mean he's MY hero. (Whether he is or not is irrelevant to this point) But anyone who claims another as THEIR hero will indeed seek to emulate those qualities that work toward making them a hero for that person. This is obvious.
Fourth, Walker was indeed presented with plenty of opposing studies and precedents which he blatantly ignored and dismissed. That you do the same is obvious and dishonest on your part as well.
Finally, the 14th does not apply here because the writers of the law had no intention of providing anything resembling homo-marriage. And while it protects all citizens from being deprived of rights or privileges to which others can claim, it does not protect homos from pretending that they are entitled to enter into legal contracts to which they do not qualify. No state, nor the feds, allow just any union to be considered a marriage. Age is a factor, regardless of the maturity of those involved. Close relatives are denied the right to call their unions marriage. Multiple partners are also outside the definition. The 14th does not provide any right to redefine a word so as to place one's self within the definition. THAT is called "special privileges". Deal with it.
Post a Comment