USVI-On-Line

SJfromNJ wrote:

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:
Sounds like you had a nice male bonding experience.

Certainly not as good as your dream trip with Joshie!

Joshie stiffed me...and we all know how painful that can be.

Some of us enjoy a good stiffing, Pete...

There's the Bev we know and love.

Taking your bait here if you want to make it a straight up moral issue then divorces should be illegal cause it ain't gays who are compromising sacred marriage vows but the cavalier attitude towards marriage in general (and I am a conservative)

DELETED

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:There's the Bev we know and love.

I'm much better at being a smart ass...I'll stick to what I know from now on, Pete!

Nice to see you back Mrs. B!!

Even Ahhhhh-nold gets it.

The governor added: “While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision.”

SJfromNJ wrote:It is clear God does not condone homosexual relationships. God does, however allow for divorce for infidelity and maybe one other reason.

I must have missed that interview. Sixty minutes? Nah, it had to have been on Fox news.

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?

augie wrote:

SJfromNJ wrote:It is clear God does not condone homosexual relationships. God does, however allow for divorce for infidelity and maybe one other reason.

I must have missed that interview. Sixty minutes? Nah, it had to have been on Fox news.

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?

It was on Fox silly!!! Can't remember if it was Hannity or O'Reilly.

Though the decision does make for strange bedfellows.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/olson-boies/

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.

Hey me and my pals here don’t appreciate any disrespect bout Jersey…even if its whatchacallit hypothetical…

I really miss that show

Again, it wasn't until 1991 that the MAJORITY (50%+) of adults in America when polled said that interracial couples should be allowed to marry.

1991.