usvi-on-line
DELETED
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
I must have missed that interview. Sixty minutes? Nah, it had to have been on Fox news.SJfromNJ wrote:It is clear God does not condone homosexual relationships. God does, however allow for divorce for infidelity and maybe one other reason.
Or was this the lost tablet of Moses, the other one being the commandments?
Or is this some preacher/convention's interpretation of King James' interpretation of the edited ancient scrolls?
Come see us!
It was on Fox silly!!! Can't remember if it was Hannity or O'Reilly.augie wrote:I must have missed that interview. Sixty minutes? Nah, it had to have been on Fox news.SJfromNJ wrote:It is clear God does not condone homosexual relationships. God does, however allow for divorce for infidelity and maybe one other reason.
Or was this the lost tablet of Moses, the other one being the commandments?
Or is this some preacher/convention's interpretation of King James' interpretation of the edited ancient scrolls?
Though the decision does make for strange bedfellows.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/olson-boies/
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
SJFROMNJ...your original point of "the will of the people", "majority rule" certainly is alluring. Of course, in this great Democracy, why would we deny the will of the "People."
Once again, I posit this...Brown v. Board of Education.
The "People" in Kansas wanted to uphold the "separate but equal" ways that foolishly were condoned by Plessy v. Ferguson...in freakin' 1896!
People sometimes get it wrong. The courts are supposed to be a check against that.
That is why so many in California are so disappointed. The "system of checks and balances" didn't check and didn't balance.
I will leave you with this question, given that you believe that the majority vote of the people should rule: What if the nation took a vote and decided that all of the residents of New Jersey should be denied citizenship...or, what if all of us decided that only you should be.
We win, right?
The former citizens of New Jersey, could not count on the courts to correct this obvious wrong. You, could not count on the courts to correct this obvious wrong.
Because, heck, at least 50% plus 1 said it should be so.
I don't care if the issue is gay marriage or ridding our nation of New Jersey, once you allow referendums to trump constitutional rights...all of us are in danger.
Once again, I posit this...Brown v. Board of Education.
The "People" in Kansas wanted to uphold the "separate but equal" ways that foolishly were condoned by Plessy v. Ferguson...in freakin' 1896!
People sometimes get it wrong. The courts are supposed to be a check against that.
That is why so many in California are so disappointed. The "system of checks and balances" didn't check and didn't balance.
I will leave you with this question, given that you believe that the majority vote of the people should rule: What if the nation took a vote and decided that all of the residents of New Jersey should be denied citizenship...or, what if all of us decided that only you should be.
We win, right?
The former citizens of New Jersey, could not count on the courts to correct this obvious wrong. You, could not count on the courts to correct this obvious wrong.
Because, heck, at least 50% plus 1 said it should be so.
I don't care if the issue is gay marriage or ridding our nation of New Jersey, once you allow referendums to trump constitutional rights...all of us are in danger.
Wisconsin, smell the dairy air
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin