Did vette out himself?

[unregistered]

 

[angie33]

Things are just fine for me, and thanks for your concern, but I don't give a shit one way or the other. To me this is nothing but a verbal sparring match, an Internet game, but by all means do continue to see it as your personal vehicle for social justice.

Grandpa urine, you do give a shit so don't lie.

 

[Queersetti]

Things are just fine for me, and thanks for your concern, but I don't give a shit one way or the other. To me this is nothing but a verbal sparring match, an Internet game, but by all means do continue to see it as your personal vehicle for social justice.

Actually, my vehicle for social justice is the movement that has led to almost half of all Americans living in states with full equality for gays and lesbians, but, yeah, addressing you in about 5 posts in the last 5 years is second on the list.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

I have nothing against the states passing whatever laws their populace desires, my only objection is when a federal judge presumes to start overthrowing elections and imposing his will on millions who think otherwise. They have full equality in my state too, seeing how there's damn little legal difference between a civil union and marriage.

Do court rulings in the 50's and 60's ending segregation bother you as well?

 

[Garnate]

Do court rulings in the 50's and 60's ending segregation bother you as well?

Proooooobably....

 

[Bry1313]

Proooooobably....

Federal judges did presume to overrule elections and imposed their will on millions who saw no reason to change the status quo that was working for a majority of the voting populace.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have nothing against the states passing whatever laws their populace desires, my only objection is when a federal judge presumes to start overthrowing elections and imposing his will on millions who think otherwise. They have full equality in my state too, seeing how there's damn little legal difference between a civil union and marriage.

Grampa JamesBUrine has long been a fan of "seperate but equal".
The gays should know their place. The coloreds too.
:nods:

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

Show me an election that was overruled by a federal judge between the Reconstruction and present times.

Overturning Jim Crow was overruling the results of elections in their states, even though the laws were voted on directly.

Federal judges were overruling the will of the locals in overturning Jim Crow

 

[Bry1313]

I have nothing against the states passing whatever laws their populace desires, my only objection is when a federal judge presumes to start overthrowing elections and imposing his will on millions who think otherwise. They have full equality in my state too, seeing how there's damn little legal difference between a civil union and marriage.

If civil unions are the same as marriage in your state, just call them a marriage.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

Tell that to the Gay lobby.

The gay lobby are the ones wanting to get marriage. You are the one pushing different terms. So defend why we need separate terms if they are the same thing.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

Not really. Show me a case where a federal judge directly overthrew an election like was done in California on Prop 8. Overthrowing legislative acts isn't the same thing as directly overthrowing the results of an election. So show me.

Your question is moot since it's only recently that states have abdicated legislative responsibility from their state houses to the citizenry.

When the citizens pass laws the violate the civil rights of a minority, they will and should be overturned.

 

[about_average]

Not really. Show me a case where a federal judge directly overthrew an election like was done in California on Prop 8. Overthrowing legislative acts isn't the same thing as directly overthrowing the results of an election. So show me.

So if a state passes a law, via the ballot, that they don't have to recognize contracts from other states that would be constitutional and a court shouldn't overturn it?

edited to add, "via the ballot" so vette doesn't pretend like he doesn't understand the question

 

[Aphro]

Are Vetteman and JBJ the same person...oh, look...squirrel!

GB ADD at it's best. How did this morph into a debate about gay marriage?

 

[about_average]

Are Vetteman and JBJ the same person...oh, look...squirrel!

GB ADD at it's best. How did this morph into a debate about gay marriage?

Is there a thread here that hasn't morphed?

Anyway, as I said, the point of this thread was for laughs, and I'm still laughing at him. So I don't really care what people debate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not really. Show me a case where a federal judge directly overthrew an election like was done in California on Prop 8. Overthrowing legislative acts isn't the same thing as directly overthrowing the results of an election. So show me.

Generally speaking SCOTUS leaves political issues alone, because they think like you, its a bad precedent once The People are canvassed and the results are known. Changing the outcome is a de facto coup by the judiciary. Until John Marshall fucked Tommy Jefferson in the ass SCOTUS offered an opinon on conflicts the Congress and President then wrestled with. Jackson and Lincoln rejected judicial review. I think Jackson told SCOTUS to fuck themselves.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Is there a thread here that hasn't morphed?

Anyway, as I said, the point of this thread was for laughs, and I'm still laughing at him. So I don't really care what people debate.

Laughs at you, dipstick.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Are Grampa Urine and JBJ the same person...oh, look...squirrel!

GB ADD at it's best. How did this morph into a debate about gay marriage?

Gay Marriage is currently What Matters Most™ to Wingnut Nation here.

 

[Garnate]

Is there a thread here that hasn't morphed into a debate on gay marriage?

Fixed. I felt it was necessary and accurate.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Not really. Show me a case where a federal judge directly overthrew an election like was done in California on Prop 8. Overthrowing legislative acts isn't the same thing as directly overthrowing the results of an election. So show me.

Generally speaking SCOTUS leaves political issues alone, because they think like you, its a bad precedent once The People are canvassed and the results are known. Changing the outcome is a de facto coup by the judiciary. Until John Marshall fucked Tommy Jefferson in the ass SCOTUS offered an opinon on conflicts the Congress and President then wrestled with. Jackson and Lincoln rejected judicial review. I think Jackson told SCOTUS to fuck themselves.

Watching Vette talk to his JBJ self is creepy.

 

[Magnetron]

Watching Vette talk to his JBJ self is creepy.

If people like bry1313 and about_average could refrain from engaging either, perhaps he'll dig up another crusty wadded up sock from underneath his mattress and have a threesome with himself.