Neither did I, reason I asked.

Read the thread title Einstein.

That's what I was thinking.


In what way?

I was thinking about coordinated micro changes making macro changes. As I understand it constitutional law is based heavily on definitions, and touches on daily life more than one would expect.



A distinction I'd like to make? No.

I have a deep level of concern where anyone else has deep concern when their rights are stomped on. I happen to think we're in a cultural crisis. I see Presidential candidates calling for a nationalized health plan....socialized medicine. I see the State of Virginia's third term abortion law was just shot down by a 2-1 margin, I'll be just as vocal about that.

We clearly disagree here you being 'curious' about an opinion from me I find disingenuous given your greeting to me on these forums. I'm jumping on every right taken from me and don't understand equal outrage from my fellow citizens. The judiciary does not define my rights, they're clearly responsible for interpretting law. These are now two stunning examples of grevious misreadings of judicial review and I take offense to it.

I'm asking who should be the final definition here? Should any state...and many already do...amend their Constitution to read exactly that marriage in this society of laws is defined by one man and one woman unrelated and unwed. Should ANY court receive this in appeal, it is clear what their interpretation should be. Is it not? Should a few men and women in robes or a man occupying a temporary executive seat define marriage...or should the legislature steered by its constituents either through referendum or representative vote rule the day? Frenchy?

It's a no brainer and the defense of such judicial actions as you happen to support that particular political position is no reason to get one of your every 28 day nose bleeds and hand over your basic rights as a human being. You can stand there and offer yours, I'll keep mine, but I will go get you a kleenex for that nose.

Abraxas asks a very good question Car Mar Spell out exactly what right of yours is stomped on if a couple of fags now living together are granted  a document legitimizing their relationship? How does that hurt  you?? How did you hand over your rights if you allow this to take place?
 There is nothing "clear" about my position on this subject I have never offered an opinion on it
 BTW make a convincing argument and I might agree with you.

Why the need to stand behind him with f'n poms poms in your hand cheerleading. I haven't even responded to his post yet...Frenchy.



And the "document legitimizing their relationship" is exactly right. The majority do not want marriage used to legitimize homosexuality and therefore vote against it. Overwhelmingly. It is the reason there is a federal statute, the reason many states have amended their Constitutions. For example...this ridiculous California ruling...doesn't now apply to other states. If you're married in California, that is not going to be recognized in my state, and it's not recognized by the federal government either, benefits such as ss will not be afforded. (Thank God).


Trolls don't normally take clear positions so, I don't find that odd.