(09-24-2014 03:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 03:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 03:23 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 03:20 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 03:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Pretty sad dude. You know nothing about our Constitution. A product of public education. We are doomed.

I'm glad you can admit interpreting the constitution is the courts job, and not yours or mine.

That's not a factual statement either. You aren't doing very good on this thread.

what makes you think it's your job to interpret the US constitution?

It is either in the text of the constitution or it isn't. No interpretation necessary.

not your call to make...

(09-24-2014 04:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 02:15 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  That doesn't answer the question. Neither I nor Okla asked for a court interpretation.

That's UofM's way of saying that you're right and he's wrong. He won't come out and say it, but he knows it.

more playground comments from the corn dog stand, I see.

(09-24-2014 04:31 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  They're only activist judges when you disagree with their rulings, and you have clear issues with understanding how our system has been working for over 200 years now.

Yeah yeah, just like the liberals said about the judges in the Hobby Lobby case, right? Except they ARE the activists, huh.

You come to notice the unthinking masses on both sides tend to repeat a lot of the same things when it suits them.

(09-24-2014 04:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 04:31 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  They're only activist judges when you disagree with their rulings, and you have clear issues with understanding how our system has been working for over 200 years now.

Yeah yeah, just like the liberals said about the judges in the Hobby Lobby case, right? Except they ARE the activists, huh.

You come to notice the unthinking masses on both sides tend to repeat a lot of the same things when it suits them.

So still waiting on you to show me where gays are afforded the right to marry via the Constitution.

And I've explained to you fairly clearly how you're misunderstanding the purpose of a constitution, and that it doesn't require specific enumeration to grant rights. I can only hold you hand for so long.

(09-24-2014 08:12 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 07:40 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:17 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  What big government? How many additional federal employees will it take to simply leave the way things are? How additional government employees will it take to change the law and then provide outreach, the inevitable LGBT disadvantaged small business preference program, which will probably garner 8(a) status, and bureaucratic code writers needed to accommodate these new privileges with major estate, adoption, and IRS implications. And then, what about reparations for past LGBT injustices? You are the one with the big government position.

A. We already have marriage laws on the book, why do we need any new people to enforce them?
B. You will never see me in favor of anything having to do with giving LGBT people special preferences or benefits in terms of owning or running a business. I am fully in favor of cake companies not serving gay couples even. If they don't want to bake them a cake, they should not have to because some gay people are upset about it.
C. Refer to A, there are already laws regarding these issues.
D. Again, I am not in favor of reparations for anyone for anything done by a past society.

but you are in favor allowing the gay agenda to redefine the sacred union of marriage and force states to recognize it.

Marriage gets redefined all the time

If marriage was so sacred then why is the divorce rate so damn high?

Why can I go to pre-much every any evangelical church in the south and see them advertising classes on divorce care?



Wait I know the answer it's just because you guys are all bunch of ******* hypocrites who don't have a clue

Wrong. Marriage has been a sacred union between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

Shows how clueless you are. Much evidence of same sex unions in many cultures.

What you think as marriage is a very recent concept

(09-24-2014 08:12 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 07:41 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:28 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 03:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  but you are in favor allowing the gay agenda to redefine the sacred union of marriage and force states to recognize it.

Actually no. I am in favor of the government having nothing at all to do with marriage, gay or straight. The fact that the government worries about what consenting adults do behind closed doors at all is wrong. If a religion wants to marry two gay people, cool, if not, also cool, no skin off my back. But as far as the government it concerned, I would like them to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

Since that isn't going to happen, who am I to tell two gay dudes they should not get to file their taxes together?

Then you should be outraged that the federal courts are forcing states to adopt and recognize a new definition of marriage.

So to be mad at the federal government for actually trying to enforce the United States Constitution

Newsflash there's more to the constitution than just the second amendment

Wrong. Where in the Constitution does it says gays are afforded the right to marriage?

Nothing about marriage in the constitution But if you offer for heterosexual, you have to offer for all Americans

(09-24-2014 09:58 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 07:35 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 02:50 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 02:25 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It makes you wonder how the democrats were able to find all these judges and what incentives were given to them.

It's no coincidence that this all began under the Obama admin.

I thought you were a big "states rights" guy?

I can guarantee you that most of Louisiana, besides the New Orleans area, is heavily against gay marriage. If the people who pay for the state actually got a say, there are many that would still have a ban on gay marriage.

And most don't want the darkies to vote either

SMH

Go be stupid somewhere else.

My brain too much for you bigoted morons. Lol

The Constitution doesn't grant anything...

(09-24-2014 05:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 09:58 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2014 07:35 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 02:50 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 02:25 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I thought you were a big "states rights" guy?

I can guarantee you that most of Louisiana, besides the New Orleans area, is heavily against gay marriage. If the people who pay for the state actually got a say, there are many that would still have a ban on gay marriage.

And most don't want the darkies to vote either

SMH

Go be stupid somewhere else.

My brain too much for you bigoted morons. Lol

Wow, a self-hating bigot. I thought those were legends, I never thought I'd see one here!