doublegunshop.com - home Forums Incest is now Legal!

The one thing I and the Muslim religion agree upon is gays....

Legislatures and majorities have not decided the issue of gay marriage. When it has been put on the ballot, it has been defeated. It is the judiciary that overturns the wishes of the majority.

I have no objection to providing some legal protections to those who might choose to form a union with another of the same sex, just do not call it a marriage or permit them to adopt children.

I see your point, Jim H. I didn't know the "legal" of gay marriage was primarily from courts finding state bans against them unconstitutional.

Am I correct in saying state majorities banning gay marriage were subordinate to a federal constitutional right decided by and for the people?

I appreciate your sentiments. A lot is hard for me to hoist aboard.

I am not a legal scholar and won't pretend to be one. The question of gay marriage is far from settled although many would like to pretend it is. When put to ballot, it is overturned, usually by a significant majority. When put to judicial decision, the equal protection clause is often cited. The Supreme Court will be taking up the issue in its current session.

canvasback... are you watching this one unfold between King and J.C. Hannum? Mr. Hannum often comes here to refute King's bullshit with the truth, and I for one, thank him and wish he had more time to police the full time Bullshit Machine named King. Check out King's reply...



Once again, we have this Libtard who spends so much time observing and commenting upon all that he sees as wrong with the U.S. telling us that he did not know that several states had the Courts overturn Gay Marriage Bans that were enacted by ballot initiatives.

Will you tell us you actually believe that? Please tell me no, or I will have to conclude you have been drinking King Brown Kool-Aid, or perhaps he sent you a bottle of the crude hallucinogenic Nova Scotian Lichen Brandy he obviously drinks. If those words came from many other people, I would be inclined to take them at their word. I could perhaps believe it if you or OldStarfire or some other Canadian who didn't spend a fraction of the time meddling in our affairs as King does said it.

But we are talking about an intelligent well read ex-journalist who is intensely interested in U.S. affairs and the subject of homosexual rights, for whatever reason. His research into the subject is well known by his commentary here. This is a guy who often renounces and discredits any of us who feel that marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman, as being bigoted or homophobic. And now he is pleading ignorance??? The Federal Courts overturning Gay Marriage bans in some states didn't generate much interest or news, but it was huge news, and widely publicized when Prop. 8 was voted down in largely Liberal Democrat California and then the decision of that majority was overturned in the Court.

Also, you have to, or should, consider the source. Sometimes we need to use our senses and better judgement to form an opinion, and I get very skeptical when a known compulsive liar says anything.

Keith, after reading the initial news article, and finding it a little less than authoritative, given it read like it was lifted from the pages of Star Magazine or The National Inquirer, I haven't been back until now. And lo and behold, my name has popped up!

So for the record, I too found King's assertion that he was unaware that gay rights, and in particular gay marriage, had been advanced primarily through judicial activism rather than the legislative process, a little hard to believe.

You seem to think that I may be drinking the kool-aid when I'm really am just expecting that I apply the same standards to all. I suspect that had I been keeping up with this thread and I saw King's comments before anyone else had responded, I would have called bullshit. It is impossible NOT to know that judicial activism, hand in glove with media manipulation, is at the root of the gay marriage advancement.

My post wasn't framed that way, James, or intended the way some see it here. Everyone knows courts interpret and rule on bills and laws. It has more relevance in the United States where stacking and vetting is common discourse, and relatively little of it here in Canada.

You may agree that a constant (and tiresome) refrain from me is: like it or not, laws are democratic expressions of the people from their legislatures. If you don't like Obama and McCain as your president and senator, suck it up, they were chosen by pluralities and majorities!

Aware as any interested in public affairs, I applied the same sentiment to three-quarters of US states who offer gay marriage, only realizing after Jim H's message that those states were dragooned into observing a constitutional right, reminiscent but much more benign than the struggle for civil rights.

On your point of judicial activism and media involvement advancing gay rights, it's the same dynamic that advances and stops everything when persons say that's not right according to what's written in our most authoritative rule book on how we're to govern ourselves, and take it to the Supreme Court

I understand why some saw my comment as bullshit. Any error on my part, however, was ascribing to those states a willingness to accommodate a sacred constitutional right recognized years ago by Canada and Europe. I'm in Jim H's debt for straightening me out.

Here's a small chance cback to apply the same standards to all. We're riddled with assumptions that are assumed to be matter of fact because of some pc civility.

Can you see how there could be any complaint about the US' Republican 'legislatures', bo's pres. He's got the pen and phone. He's filled the judicial positions that fabricate the sacredness of that 'standard', the constitution of putty.

Apologies for butting in. It's those "checks and balances," Craig, and why the good ship America will be in a sling the next two years, Republicans owning Congress notwithstanding. I've been called partisan for not commenting on GOP now. It doesn't matter one way or another. Congress can't be a less poisonous and dysfunctional than the last six years.

I am usually just an observer here, but on occasion feel the need to throw in my two cents. Most of the time it is to counter King's comments as he seems to be an adherent of the big lie. I'm not calling him out as a liar individually, but the liberal mindset in general and press and politicians in particular.

The continual of tossing out and repeating half truths, bulls... statistics and out right lies until they become accepted as fact is a well known ploy of the libs. Global warming is supported by 97% of scientists, X number of states support gay marriage, Obama has been elected twice, Republicans hate women and minorities and want to impose poll tax on blacks and on it goes.

Unless we continue to stand up and refute these people at every opportunity and debunk their propaganda, they will continue to force their views on the uninformed voter and further their causes. The 47% Romney was addressing is this populace, which the libs are cultivating.