Comments on: Gay Marriage Opponents Vow To Fight Ruling
Group Wants Legalized Same-Sex Marriage In Calif. Postponed Until Nov. So Voters Can Weigh In
Add a Comment See all 886 Comments
- Ya''''ll have fun. I''''ve enjoyed the discord. One of the things we are blessed to have in this country
Posted by codymac4 at 11:23 PM : May 16, 2008
I agree. Bye for now. - Reply to this comment
- Californians put everybody to shame when it comes to woofing down the ***
Posted by codymac4 at 11:17 PM : May 16, 2008
There certainly are a great many gay people here, that''s true. it''s one of the things that makes California a wonderful state to live in. As a group they add greatly to our state and we''re glad to have them here. - Reply to this comment
- How is any issue related to gay marriage outside the boundaries of the constitution when it comes to voting on the moral values of gay marriage? It''''s not like a voting for the use of excessive force agianst people who run from the police.
Posted by codymac4 at 11:11 PM : May 16, 2008
Because this is not an issue of the moral values of gay people. It''s a question of do they have the same rights as straight couples and the court ruled, properly I think, that they do. The court does not rule on morality because that is such a subjective and relative idea. One person''s morality is not the same as another''s when it comes to concepts like ****-sexuality. Some people are opposed to it on religious grounds, meaning of course on the basis of their own feelings of morality and the court can not take that into consideration because religious morality is not allowed to be a part of our secular government. - Reply to this comment
- I have spent time in Texas too. Dallas/Fort Worth area. What floored me was the drinking and driving...
Posted by IOWEIGN at 11:10 PM : May 16, 2008
And the eating! Go to Houston and drive around. There are more restaurants per ca-pita there then in any other city in America. I consider myself to be a good eater, but those Houston folks put me to shame when it comes to wolfing down the grub. - Reply to this comment
- Why does anyone really feel the need to try to control someone else''s life? Gay people obviously just want to be happy and live satisfying lives. Thank you, SgtRDS-E4 for reminding us all that our founders warned us about the tyranny of the majority.
Seems like a lot of people are caught up in a perceived splinter in their neighbor''s eye and ignoring the log in their own. - Reply to this comment
- I''''''''m not. That''''''''s the Sgts. assumption.
Posted by codymac4 at 11:00 PM : May 16, 2008
I made no such assumption. I merely stated that I believe there is an unusually high concentration of rednecks in Texas and said that is one of the reasons why I wouldn''''t want to live there. That assumes nothing about you personally.
Posted by SgtRDS-E4 at 11:06 PM : May 16, 2008
I have spent time in Texas too. Dallas/Fort Worth area. What floored me was the drinking and driving... - Reply to this comment
- I''''m not. That''''s the Sgts. assumption.
Posted by codymac4 at 11:00 PM : May 16, 2008
I made no such assumption. I merely stated that I believe there is an unusually high concentration of rednecks in Texas and said that is one of the reasons why I wouldn''t want to live there. That assumes nothing about you personally. - Reply to this comment
- This country was founded on the voters voice. If the courts can over rule the majority, how is that not a dictatorship.
Posted by codymac4 at 10:58 PM : May 16, 2008
voters voice - yes
You have free speech but you don''t have the right to slander someone using that free speech.
There are provisions in the Constitution to impeachment judges.
Google William O. Douglas - Gerald Ford tried to get Douglas removed. - Reply to this comment
- This country was founded on the voters voice. If the courts can over rule the majority, how is that not a dictatorship.
Posted by codymac4 at 10:58 PM : May 16, 2008
No we were not founded strictly on the voice of the voters. We are not a strict democracy of majority rule. We are a democratic republic with a Constitution that calls for three separate and equally powerful branches that check and balance each other. One of the functions of the judicial branch is to check the power of the electorate when the electorate goes outside of the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States. It''s function is to protect small groups of people from the mob of the majority. It''s not a dictatorship because the people have a say in who will sit on the bench and exercise that power. - Reply to this comment
- "dogsock is the gayest thing I have seen since I got head in an airport bathroom from a Republican Senator. "
- Reply to this comment
- OK, so you admit that you are predjudice in some form, against rednecks.
Posted by codymac4 at 10:53 PM : May 16, 2008
Why are you classifying yourself as a redneck? - Reply to this comment
- OK, so you admit that you are predjudice in some form, against rednecks.
Posted by codymac4 at 10:53 PM : May 16, 2008
Sure. rednecks and hillbillies. I''ve never been able to understand a group of people who remain ignorant on purpose. - Reply to this comment
- Roe v Wade and the California question should be answered by the voters. Why not have a gay marriage amendment?
Posted by downsteamjim at 10:50 PM : May 16, 2008
I disagree that Roe and gay marriage should be strictly decided by the voters. The courts still have their function of balance in our government to be sure that what the voters decide is indeed legal. Just because a majority of the voters decide something does not make it automatically legal. One of the main purposes of the court is to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by codymac4 at 10:48 PM : May 16, 2008
I didn''t say everyone from Texas is a redneck. It''s just that they have an unusually high concentration of them. Except in the Eastern part of the state for some reason? - Reply to this comment
- Plessy essentially overturned the constitutional amendments passed at the end of the civil war. Roe v Wade and the California question should be answered by the voters. Why not have a gay marriage amendment?
- Reply to this comment
- I just hoping that earthquake that seperates California from the US comes soon. I don''''t want anybody to get hurt. Just wanna move these liberals on out of here
Posted by codymac4 at 10:28 PM : May 16, 2008
Works for me. I''ve been pushing for us to secede for a long time now. Many of us here in California are getting tired of always being criticized while at the same time we''re picking up a disproportionately large sized portion of America''s tab. - Reply to this comment
- To SgtsRd-e4: Plessy vs Furgeson was a classic example of judicial activism.
Posted by downsteamjim at 10:44 PM : May 16, 2008
But can''t all controversial rulings be seen as activist, depending on the side you''re on. Sure I think they were wrong in Plessy, but I also think they were right in Roe, but both to me are equally activist or not activist. They are just the actions of the court. - Reply to this comment
- If you don''t feel your affected or don''t care about the issue of gay marriage, why the hell are you on here?
Posted by codymac4 at 10:36 PM : May 16, 2008
Once there is religious based legislation, it will snowball. There is already a faith-based office in the White House which I am against. - Reply to this comment
- To SgtsRd-e4: Plessy vs Furgeson was a classic example of judicial activism.
- Reply to this comment
- I''''m glad you live in California too. We would not tolerate you in Texas
Posted by codymac4 at 10:39 PM : May 16, 2008
Why in the world would I WANT to be in Texas? I''ve been there several times and never found much to like about being surrounded by rednecks. Well except a few times in East Texas. Some good folks around Austin/Round Rock. - Reply to this comment
