[WideRight05]

Alright liberals, we've got a big issue coming up here with the sequestration. Your poster boy sure has his stuff straight doesn't he? All this going on and he is certainly using his time wisely to make a difference. The top priority right now should be gay marriage in California. Whatever happened to the power of the people?

Regardless of one's position on this issue - the people voted to overturn this. Is this abuse of power by Obama, as well as the judges, or is it abuse of power?

Let's her what your defense is, liberals. I'm sure you'll be celebrating if the supreme court overturns the gay marriage ban and the economy sinks even further.

Oh yeah, don't forget Obama - big deadline coming up!


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-high-c...19682.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In President Barack Obama's latest act in support of gay rights, his administration on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California.

The administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case set to be argued on March 26 on whether California's 2008 measure, known as Proposition 8, is unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.
In the brief, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that states cannot give all the benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians without calling it marriage.

That position, if adopted by the court, would affect not just California but also seven other states that offer benefits to same-sex couples while barring marriage.

The states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships providing all or virtually all state-level spousal rights but not the "marriage" designation.
They are Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Nevada and Oregon.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that the filing "seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."

Verrilli wrote that the California law "provides to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners all the legal incidents of marriage, but it nonetheless denies them the designation of marriage allowed to their opposite-sex counterparts."

[TheRealThing]

Alright liberals, we've got a big issue coming up here with the sequestration. Your poster boy sure has his stuff straight doesn't he? All this going on and he is certainly using his time wisely to make a difference. The top priority right now should be gay marriage in California. Whatever happened to the power of the people?

Regardless of one's position on this issue - the people voted to overturn this. Is this abuse of power by Obama, as well as the judges, or is it abuse of power?

Let's her what your defense is, liberals. I'm sure you'll be celebrating if the supreme court overturns the gay marriage ban and the economy sinks even further.

Oh yeah, don't forget Obama - big deadline coming up!


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-high-c...19682.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In President Barack Obama's latest act in support of gay rights, his administration on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California.

The administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case set to be argued on March 26 on whether California's 2008 measure, known as Proposition 8, is unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.
In the brief, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that states cannot give all the benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians without calling it marriage.

That position, if adopted by the court, would affect not just California but also seven other states that offer benefits to same-sex couples while barring marriage.

The states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships providing all or virtually all state-level spousal rights but not the "marriage" designation.
They are Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Nevada and Oregon.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that the filing "seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."

Verrilli wrote that the California law "provides to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners all the legal incidents of marriage, but it nonetheless denies them the designation of marriage allowed to their opposite-sex counterparts."

Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Nevada and Oregon
Don't forget, Kentucky is on the threshold, three cities are giving benefits to partners (Partners, are you kidding me?) of homosexual city employees.

On a side note, I bet Hopalong Cassity would like to take all those "howdy partners" back!

[Granny Bear]

And how many on here even know Hopalong Cassidy??

[TheRealThing]

And how many on here even know Hopalong Cassidy??

I know of two.

[nky]

More of a Roy Rogers fan myself
[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=hopalong+cassidy&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=D42T9ktbeliseM&tbnid=olemiQgcpNWpFM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rickshriver.net%2Fhopalongcassidy.htm&ei=bvcwUYj6K4SS9gT8oYDQAg&bvm=bv.43148975,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNH8iuwsaPgRntKtKvnI0Ov8G52D1A&ust=1362249944112159][/url]

[vundy33]

I don't think this is the Obama Administration's top priority, lol. But I think it should be left up to the people, no matter what a recent poll says. Put it to a vote if it's so important, but there is absolutely no reason to pressure the State of California to overturn it.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Lets give states the right, but ALWAYS bring it to a vote
Youll never have to worry about KY siding with the flaming homosexuals.

[TheRealThing]

I don't think this is the Obama Administration's top priority, lol. But I think it should be left up to the people, no matter what a recent poll says. Put it to a vote if it's so important, but there is absolutely no reason to pressure the State of California to overturn it.

EXCERPT ---
Americans have voted; " The people of the state of California have voted against gay marriage twice and now that the California Supreme Court looks like it will uphold Proposition 8, the homosexual community is planning to put a proposition on the ballot to override Prop 8.

Well, let me tell you this. I will go out and vote against whatever they put on the ballot and I will be campaigning this time around to defeat whatever proposition they put on the ballot. The people of California have spoken out about this and made their decision but the homosexual community doesn't want to abide by the law."
END ---

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.a...4977632730



They aren't about playing fair, and these guys are not timid and shy gentle folk, who are being bashed around by us straight people. All the court actions and voting has nothing to do with homosexuals being left alone, they've always been left alone. This is about war. A war of evil against good. And, it is they who are bringing the fight to us, certainly not the other way around. That's the reason they have gained an advantage in the first place, they have learned how to use the court system proactively.

[TheRealVille]

States shouldn't be allowed to vote on their own on things that are rights of American citizens to be treated equal. If they are allowed to do that, who's to say that some states won't do away with racial discrimination laws, or other human rights laws. This is a nationwide, federal thing.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Its very simple for those who want different things to move to different places.

[Hoot Gibson]

There are constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. To continually claim that there is such a right is dishonest. The U.S. Constitution explicitly reserves to states jurisdiction over matters that it does not explicitly enumerate as federal responsibilities. It really is that simple.

[TheRealVille]

.

[TheRealVille]

^
Its very simple for those who want different things to move to different places.

You don't have the right to decide others' rights.

[TheRealVille]

There are constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. To continually claim that there is such a right is dishonest. The U.S. Constitution explicitly reserves to states jurisdiction over matters that it does not explicitly enumerate as federal responsibilities. It really is that simple.

Do states have the right to disallow straight marriages?

[Hoot Gibson]

Do states have the right to disallow straight marriages?

They certainly have the constitutional right to bar the secular institution of marriage and they certainly do not have the right to bar the religious institution of marriage because of the First Amendment.

[Hoot Gibson]

They certainly have the constitutional right to bar the secular institution of marriage and they certainly do not have the right to bar the religious institution of marriage because of the First Amendment.

Of course, the politicians who passed laws banning state recognition of straight marriages would have to find real jobs. Gay marriage is a political issue - not a constitutional one.

That being said, there are plenty of liberal judges who will jump at the opportunity to spin the Constitution upside down and rule that all states must recognize gay marriages performed in states where it is legalized.

[TheRealThing]

You don't have the right to decide others' rights.

LOL, Civics 101. Probably the most absurd post you've put up yet. So, you're saying if a group of vigilantes are out terrorizing the people, we can't tell them they don't have the right to do that? :yikes:
How about marriage between people and their pets, or maybe even a particiular potted plant? I mean, they should be given benefits if their human spouse is a government employee, right?

[TheRealThing]

It would be entertaining to see the outcome of a referendum on whether or not Kentuckians want to see their state legallize same sex marriage.

[TheRealThing]

States shouldn't be allowed to vote on their own on things that are rights of American citizens to be treated equal. If they are allowed to do that, who's to say that some states won't do away with racial discrimination laws, or other human rights laws. This is a nationwide, federal thing.

Each state is a sovereign entity. They don't even have to stay part of the United States if they don't want to, that process is known as secession. You're talking about a monarchy "thing" or a dictatorship "thing".

[nky]

States shouldn't be allowed to vote on their own on things that are rights of American citizens to be treated equal. If they are allowed to do that, who's to say that some states won't do away with racial discrimination laws, or other human rights laws. This is a nationwide, federal thing.

yea
The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

[TheRealVille]

Each state is a sovereign entity. They don't even have to stay part of the United States if they don't want to, that process is known as secession. You're talking about a monarchy "thing" or a dictatorship "thing".

Why don't some of these states secede then, and quit getting federal money?

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no such thing as "federal money." All of the money that government hands out to states comes from the citizens of the 50 states and the federal government's creditors, such as China. The feds take a big cut and then send what's left back to states, counties, and local communities. A large chunk of the People's money lands in the Washington suburbs, where most of the nation's most affluent counties are located.

Federal politicians and bureaucrats are running a legal Ponzi scheme.

[TheRealVille]

There is no such thing as "federal money." All of the money that government hands out to states comes from the citizens of the 50 states and the federal government's creditors, such as China. The feds take a big cut and then send what's left back to states, counties, and local communities. A large chunk of the People's money lands in the Washington suburbs, where most of the nation's most affluent counties are located.

Federal politicians and bureaucrats are running a legal Ponzi scheme.

They still get money, Kentucky for instance, that comes from citizens(states) that are for marriage equality. Kentucky is a "taker" state, so we won't go into the money they receive from other states citizens.

[Hoot Gibson]

They still get money, Kentucky for instance, that comes from citizens(states) that are for marriage equality. Kentucky is a "taker" state, so we won't go into the money they receive from other states citizens.

Something liberals seem not to understand is that government does not and cannot create wealth. The federal government destroys wealth. Losing so-called federal money would be to lose nothing - because roughly 40 percent of the money that the federal government spends is borrowed. Any state that managed to secede from the union, would lose their share of the annual debt that Washington accumulates. Of course, liberals would not stand by idly and watch the citizens of any state regain their sovereign rights.

[TheRealVille]

Something liberals seem not to understand is that government does not and cannot create wealth. The federal government destroys wealth. Losing so-called federal money would be to lose nothing - because roughly 40 percent of the money that the federal government spends is borrowed. Any state that managed to secede from the union, would lose their share of the annual debt that Washington accumulates. Of course, liberals would not stand by idly and watch the citizens of any state regain their sovereign rights.

Do you think Kentucky could survive without government money(money that other states citizens send)? They do get more than they give, you know. You did acknowledge that money KY gets come from citizens from all 50 states.

There is no such thing as "federal money." All of the money that government hands out to states comes from the citizens of the 50 states and the federal government's creditors, such as China. The feds take a big cut and then send what's left back to states, counties, and local communities. A large chunk of the People's money lands in the Washington suburbs, where most of the nation's most affluent counties are located.

Federal politicians and bureaucrats are running a legal Ponzi scheme.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you think Kentucky could survive without government money(money that other states citizens send)? They do get more than they give, you know. You did acknowledge that money KY gets come from citizens from all 50 states.

Kentucky's problem is that if it seceded, it would be surrounded by a country that is dooming itself to poverty by spending beyond its means. Kentucky is blessed with abundant resources, but the fact that it is landlocked would make it difficult to succeed as an independent nation.

One of the key differences between us, RV, is that I see taking other people's money as a problem. Government dependency has almost destroyed the work ethic among eastern Kentuckians. Losing federal welfare and other benefits would be a blessing. States should stand on their own, except in those areas of the U.S. Constitution that mandate collective action.

In other words, the scope of the federal government should be very limited and the citizens of each state should be free to decide how much government "help" their citizens actually need.

Gay marriage is a political issue that has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

[TheRealVille]

^ First you acknowledge that money that states receive is a collective thing between all 50 states, then you backtrack. Kentucky receives money from all 50 states. Shouldn't said states have a say in what KY votes to be legal, since they send us money? We do receive more than we send.

[TheRealThing]

Do you think Kentucky could survive without government money(money that other states citizens send)? They do get more than they give, you know. You did acknowledge that money KY gets come from citizens from all 50 states.

I'm not so sure about that, you got a source other than something like "Mother Jones" to back up your assertion? I guarantee you Kentucky would do just fine without federal money. We would see how fast the entitlement express would get throttled back once all the bribes from DC quit rolling in. That act alone would straighten out a lot of the mess. And that alone would get people off their butt and out looking for work.

[Hoot Gibson]

^ First you acknowledge that money that states receive is a collective thing between all 50 states, then you backtrack. Kentucky receives money from all 50 states. Shouldn't said states have a say in what KY votes to be legal, since they send us money? We do receive more than we send.

That is the way liberals think. The federal government takes our money and then gives some of it back to the states of origin and some to other states. The catch is that states accepting "federal" money, which was formerly state money, comes with many, many strings attached. Take your own money, but only if you want to jump through federally imposed hoops. It is an economically inefficient and politically oppressive way to govern a country, and it is not how the people who founded this nation expected government to work.

[TheRealVille]

That is the way liberals think. The federal government takes our money and then gives some of it back to the states of origin and some to other states. The catch is that states accepting "federal" money, which was formerly state money, comes with many, many strings attached. Take your own money, but only if you want to jump through federally imposed hoops. It is an economically inefficient and politically oppressive way to govern a country, and it is not how the people who founded this nation expected government to work.

Kentucky takes more than it gives, there is no "some of it" with us.