Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Liam R]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Separation of church and state DOES exist in the Constitution. First Amendment.
Don't ask for an exact quote, because if you're going to play the "exact quote" game, there is no "right to own a gun" either.
And the fact there isn't a requirement that you be born in the US to be president hasn't slowed the birthers down any.

One could argue that the right to own a gun is merely a substitution of equivalent words for the right to keep and bear arms. After all, The only way to keep the weapon is to own it. Otherwise, the gun shop is going to demand it back...
;)

[Liam R]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so confused. Never read Vattel have you? The founders did, and so has the SCOTUS.
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."- The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Like I said Rose, go study, you need it- a LOT!!

I am a bit behind is reading all of these posts, so this may have already been said, but you just proved Rose's point...

"those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Of course, the correct language now would be "...condition of their parents...", since mothers have the same rights as the fathers.

[Gods shoeshine]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>What would you do if one of your kids turns out to be gay?

what if they already are ?lol Idk why would it matter they are babies and I'd probably not mind my girl being with a man

[Gods shoeshine]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Yes it does.
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Isaiah 40:22
A circle is flat. And the heavens are in no way like a curtain, they virtually 100% empty space. But I am willing to let that one go, poetic license...

However, at one point Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain and shows him *all* the kingdoms of earth. That would only be possible if the earth is flat.

Pangea

[Liam R]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
There is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the CONSTITUTION..
It was a fabrication of the SCOTUS in 1961.
But I do like your nonsense, that somehow the very men who drafted the document violated it because they didn't comprehend its meaning until the SCOTUS figured it out in 1961.
You're a moron.

Liar. The actual phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson, writing to reassure a Baptist church that the government was not going to interfere in their rituals and superstitions.n His exact phrase was "...a wall of separation between church and state...", so it looks like SCOTUS was merely enacting the will of the men who drafted that document rather belatedly.

For that matter, 1961 was most certainly NOT the first time that such separation was required by SCOTUS.

[Gods shoeshine]

Gods shoeshine wrote:

<quoted text>what if they already are ?lol Idk why would it matter they are babies and I'd probably not mind my girl being with a man

*not being

[Gods shoeshine]

I'm more worried about my children being free thinking self expressing artist then who they have sex with . If my son was a homeless drunk hetero I would be sad if he was a gay folk singer I would be proud if he was a bisexual homeless drunk Folk singer I wouldn't know what to think

[Liam R]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
You cant be that stupid, your lifestyle and mine are like day and night, your cult wants to teach the gay lifestyle in public schools, that's just the start of more waste to come, we will all be better off if you just live your lives the way you have been, I don't have a problem with that. It is you gays that always feel victimized

Well, since some of those children are gay, they NEED to be taught that what they are (or will be) feeling is just as natural as what anyone else in their class is feeling. Then too, some of those kids may be in a family with two dads or two moms, and their classmates need to understand that there are some families that are like that, just like some families have a mom, a step-dad, a dad and a step-mom. Or one parent and a grandparent. Or only one parent. Or no parents, but grandparents. Or parents, grandparents and a random assortment of a few uncles, aunts, and cousins all in one house.

[Liam R]

Gods shoeshine wrote:

<quoted text>
Pangea

Pangaea broke up LONG before humans evolved...

[SpongeBob]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>WOW he gave 10k to that group.
But Reid is Mormon, didn't he donate to his Church too? Oh, that's right, REID won't release his taxes. what is he hiding. Where are Pelosi's tax records? But you adore dirty Harry, the real dirty Harry. Harry Reid has refused to release his own tax returns. "Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised."
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi (1828-1910) Russian writer
I have an idea: why Doesn't Obama release his college records? What is he hiding?

The Dems you mention aren't running for the Presidency. Who in Congress releases their tax records?

Obama has already been elected; why should he be questioned NOW? BTW, do you think "W" graduated "honestly" from Yale and Harvard? The U.S. elected a "dry drunk" and we've paid for it dearly....

[Liam R]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is why apologizing for supposedly offending Mohammad is not just a violation of free speech, it is imposing a religion on our nation.
Missed that, didn't you?

Silly child, wrong yet again. You don't ever tire of being wrong, do you?

It is the JOB of the Secretary of State and even the President to apologize when appropriate, since it was NOT the U.S of A. that offended the muzzies. Since America is not a Christians nation any more than it is a Muslim nation, it would be no more right to insult Mohammud than it would be to insult Jesus, Buddha, or Yahweh.

It becomes a violation of our first amendment rights if and ONLY if they were to try and stop any of us from saying that Mohammud was a pedophile and a camel thief with delusions of grandeur...

[Liam R]

TucksunJack wrote:

<quoted text>
A writer today sugested tat newspapers and other media start publishing offensive Mohammed cartoons everyday. His point is that after awhile these nuts will tire of protesting and being violent, and cartoons of Mohammed will then cease to be offensive.

Sigh, I wished I could draw...

[SpongeBob]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>
etc..etc...
I have an idea: why Doesn't Obama release his college records? What is he hiding?

From Fact Check
Claims #1, 2 and 4, college records. Obama’s college records are not “sealed” by a court order, as this graphic would have you believe.

It would be illegal under federal law (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) for Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School to give any former student’s records to reporters or members of the public without that person’s specific, written permission.

Obama hasn’t released them, but neither have other presidential candidates released their college records.

George W. Bush’s grades at Yale eventually became public, but only because somebody leaked them to the New Yorker magazine. Bush himself refused to release them, according to a 1999 profile in the Washington Post.

So...It appears that the school records have only been demanded of the "black guy"

[Liam R]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Mohammad is a false prophet and a pedophile who designed a fake god, Allah so he could justify robbery, murder and rape.
Others can believe the claim that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion. I prefer to believe my eyes.

Just like Christianity, in other words...

(Well, okay. To be fair, Jesus NEVER intended his words to be taken as justification for blasphemy against the God of the Bible and the abomination of pretending that he [Jesus] was a god. All that was made up YEARS after Jesus was dead and unable to defend his words.)

[Liam R]

Shock wave wrote:

I will continue to ask the question I have asked since Republicans took over Congress in July of 2011 under the premise that they would create jobs and restore the economy.
Where are the jobs?

The Repubs have created LOTS of jobs. They have all been in China, or India, but there have been lots of new jobs created...

[Frank Rizzo]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
I am a bit behind is reading all of these posts, so this may have already been said, but you just proved Rose's point...
"those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Of course, the correct language now would be "...condition of their parents...", since mothers have the same rights as the fathers.

AK has a tendency to leave things out....He also has a problem bringing things into the 20th c.

Okay:

1. The preceeding sentences to his quote from Venus are:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Note the "parents" in the second sentence. And, of course, in the 19th c., woman had minimal legal rights, so the for the courts to mention "father" may have no meaning other than they weren't used to phrases such as " father and/or mother".

2. However,(and I'm sure he'll dismiss the following, but):

When it came to the citizenship of children, when a child was born from the union of a slave and freeperson (that is "mixed-citizenship") , the law of "partus sequitur ventrem" was the law of the land. Meaning, the legal status of the child was confered on it by the legal status of the mother, not the father.

[Less W M Romney]

My My it's such a great day with out Willard Mitt Romney.

motherjones.com

[Liam R]

Randy from Wooster wrote:

But the f*gs seek to have their agenda forced upon our children, who are too young to be made aware of sexual issues, and to be taught at an age that the parents may think to be inappropriate. It is obscene, but the f*gs want first crack at our kids, forcing us normal people to make our children aware of sexual issues that we would not raise at such a stage in their little lives, thus robbing them of their innocence. How can they keep stating that this is right ? They are forcing their way into our homes and schools with this issue. In my opinion, they are molesting our children and should be stopped at all costs. Stay in the closet, cake boy......

You have no idea what a joke "too young" is. Children in preschool see and understand that families are different. Age appropriate education is necessary to teach the kids that families are made up of MANY differing configurations of parents, step parents, grandparents, etc, etc, etc.

No one is teaching sexual techniques to kindergartners.

[SpongeBob]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
The Repubs have created LOTS of jobs. They have all been in China, or India, but there have been lots of new jobs created...

Hey Man, I enjoy your posts...And it sounds like you don't have to work to hard coming up with those smart replies!

[SpongeBob]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Let's hang him for earning money, how dare a politician be rich!

No, Romney was never in danger of being hanged...

On the September 22, 2008 broadcast of his syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Sen. Barack Obama is "not black," and went on to ask: "Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood?" Limbaugh continued: "He's Arab. You know, he's from Africa. He's from Arab parts of Africa....[H]e's not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."