I'm quite certain I'm more versed on Darwinism than you are. Reading some isolated, unproven postulate with an obvious agenda means little in the grand scheme.
Those Cheyenne surely rose to dominance, by the way. Can't wait for the moment the men of Bravo come to rescue me from the apocalypse.
Bottom line is without those supposed mighty gay warriors, the straight dudes would have survived. Switch it all, and the Cheyennes wouldn't have made it past a single generation. The fact that you believe otherwise reveals how deeply buried you are in propaganda, not science.
You have no "point". You can't ok SSM and ban polygamy and NAMBLA couplings now based on some arbitrary rate of practice. Because there are 1-5% Americans who could be SSM ready and .001 are polygamists.
Despite the lib losers in these parts and your vested interest in the ruling, most Americans didn't want to bless either and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, Unwise Latina and It's Pat just blessed this abomination anyway.
More troubling, the will of people through referendum (Prop 8) is being swept aside in favor of executive branch decision.
This is the most disturbing aspect of what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about gay marriage or any other issue, the fact that judicial tyranny overruled the will of the people is horrendous. But that's the way the left rolls; lose on an issue within the parameters of the democratic process, just sue and count on overreaching activist courts to legislate (unconstitutionally) from the bench.
It has nothing at all to do with the issue. It has to do with the process. And how that process was usurped and subverted. As an American, this should trouble you. I guess it won't trouble you as long as "your side" is in power and your pet issues are benefiting from the trashing of the Constitution. But the pendulum swings and the Republicans will one day be jamming their own will using the same backdoor methods, and if this is the way sh:t's going to go down, this country is f-cked.
How was this a back door method? It was argued before the Supreme Court. That's pretty much the opposite of back door.
The referendum passed in California. The constitutionality was challenged and it was determined to be unconstitutional. This is why we have checks and balances. The people and/or congress have the power to pass laws, but the courts determine if they're constitutional.
This didn't trash the constitution one bit. Seems to me it was the constitution working.
The perverts win another round. When is a man having two wives be ok. Equal justice!
Actually, to strict constitutionalists, the DOMA decision is correct and serves to strengthen states rights. I'm not troubled in the least. It was a great day for the 10th. Not sure how anyone could say the federal government was strengthened rather than checked today, unless you don't understand what happened.
And the Prop 8 decision threw out the 9th circuit decision and returned it to the state courts. Outrage in this case should be reserved for the California court and the governor who refused to appeal the decision. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court's refusal to rule was the right call.
Last edited by JetPotato; 06-26-2013 at 09:48 PM.
Yes but this case will serve as a blueprint or precedent for other Governors to basically get rid of a laws they don't agree with by not defending them. They are basically circumventing the democratic process which is guaranteed by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court is supposed to protect.
Doggin, you out there?
I'm curious about this claim that Prop 8 actually still stands based on the CA Constitution requiring an appellate decision, which now does not exist ( yet), as the Ninth's was vacated.
In fact, prior to that decision, the CA Supreme Ct ruled it constitutional.
Bookmarks