1 posted on
02/04/2004 8:24:32 AM PST by
presidio9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: presidio9
Bookmark
292 posted on
02/04/2004 11:44:40 AM PST by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: presidio9
And the Mass Exodus from the Castro District of San Francisco begins.....
To: presidio9
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen. They should impeach and remove the judges from this court so that they can never legislate from a court again.
To: presidio9
BOHICA - "Bend Over Here It Comes Again" literally. All I can say is in a Bug's Bunny voice to the Mass Supreme Court, "whadda bunch of maroons!" B-P
395 posted on
02/04/2004 2:26:34 PM PST by
Nowhere Man
("Laws are the spider webs through which the big bugs fly past and the little ones get caught.")
To: presidio9; All
Anyone know where to find the dissenting Mass SJC opinions to Goodrich?
To: presidio9
From the Land of Kennedy, Kerry and Frank.
406 posted on
02/04/2004 2:45:21 PM PST by
oyez
To: presidio9
Such an intolerant court, limiting marriage to two people! Why can't it go further and sanction group marriage? If a bunch of folks at an orgy want to go to city hall as a group and marry, who are the courts to tell them they can't? The same goes for two sisters who want to marry, or a man and his pet alligator. Why must marriage, after all, be restricted to humans? Sheesh, how narrow-minded!
To: presidio9
This ought to give a lot of Americans pause before voting for a Mass. liberal for President.
Willl someone tell me how a court can mandate a cultural change of this magnitude over the will of so many people? It was certainly not thought of as a possibility by the framers of either the US or Mass constitution.
vaudine
454 posted on
02/04/2004 3:56:00 PM PST by
vaudine
To: presidio9
This is BS!
458 posted on
02/04/2004 4:02:15 PM PST by
petercooper
(We did not have to prove Saddam had WMD, he had to prove he didn't.)
To: presidio9
This is BS!
459 posted on
02/04/2004 4:02:19 PM PST by
petercooper
(We did not have to prove Saddam had WMD, he had to prove he didn't.)
To: presidio9
Gays to Mas Supreme court: We Want To be Married
Mas SC: Okay here ya go-
[Lagal aid Interupt]
Legal aid: Uh we need to make sure the legislature has it's say.
Mas SC: Legislature? [snicker]We don't need no stinkin legislature.
To: presidio9
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
To: presidio9
I find the timing of this ruling to be rather curious? Given apparent public opinion, I'm thinking the timing of this ruling couldn't have been a lot worse for John F'n Kerry. You'd think this judge would have waited awhile on this ruling. A few more months and Kerry wouldn't have had to deal with having his liberal stance on this issue aired. Surely these people are not so stupid and delusional that they think this will hurt Bush, especially when he just brought this up a day or two ago in his SOTU speech. Does anyone else find the timing of this ruling curious or have I just been listening to too many Clinton conspiracy folks?
499 posted on
02/04/2004 8:39:06 PM PST by
jim35
(A vote for Tancredo is a vote for the DemocRATs.)
To: presidio9
It seems that the time has come to refresh the tree of liberty once again.
If that is what it will take to stop these tyrannical judges.
503 posted on
02/04/2004 10:59:12 PM PST by
FormerLib
(We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
To: 2sheep; the-ironically-named-proverbs2
the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May. The judges can pretend to make an oxymoron not an oxymoron, but "same-sex marriage" is still an oxymoron. What they are doing is forcing a lying perverted definition of marriage down everyone's throats. It's still a lie even if they try to mandate a "new" truth via edict.
In the days of the judges:
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
What does that say about this nation, if words no longer have meanings, judges can redefine words at will to suit any agenda they please, and attempts to preserve words' true meanings become Constitutional battles? It means that truth has already fallen in the streets, and therefore "justice" really means no justice. Insanity and chaos continue their march toward victory...
To: presidio9
Is that a wisp of brimstone I detect? Perhaps it's time to rename Massachusetts "Sadaam and Gonorrhea."
To: presidio9
528 posted on
02/06/2004 12:41:12 AM PST by
counterpunch
(click my name to check out my 'toons!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
