Questions for ignorant social conservatives --

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

or just appoint judges who share your world-view 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

But there is a difference between being a conservative in one's own life and being an advocate for Government policy to mandate certain conservative principals.  I am very conservative, but for the most part, I don’t get into other’s business and I expect the government to not butt in either.   

ordered societies have law.  this law is wedded to that society's general understanding of acceptable, yes moral behavior.  if you believe that a particular law is overly restrictive, intrusive or violative of your sense of liberty, join with others of your belief and change the law.

Very good advice.

OswaldTheOsprey

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

or just appoint judges who share your world-view 

this has been the linch-pin of dem/lib social engineering now hasn't it   and most certainly falls in line with bo's views regarding the role of the courts.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

unlike your ranting about liberul judges 

[Wowster]

Where in the Constitution gives Congress and the president the authority to ban gay marriage, or legislate on marriage at all?

(I believe in freedom of association. The goings-on between two individuals is of no concern to me, and should not be a concern to the federal government, unless they are preventing others from enjoying that same freedom -- or forcing others to do the same. The freedom of association also includes the freedom not to associate.)

Also, where in the Constitution gives Congress and the president the authority to wage a "war on drugs"? Article One, Section VIII of the United States Constitution. Look it up -- you might be surprised.

It doesn't!
Gays and Lesbians want to make it a Federal issue because they know most states will not legalize marriage.
If they can not get support for Gay marriage in states, have the Federal Govt. force it upon the American people in those states.
It's called "Disenfranchising the American people"

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

unlike your ranting about liberul judges 

were you attempting to express a though??   

[spunkloaf]

unlike your ranting about liberul judges 

were you attempting to express a though??   

Gunit wins this one, Grump.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

unlike your ranting about liberul judges 

were you attempting to express a though??   

Gunit wins this one, Grump.

well there you have it gunnit, you've been endorsed by the spunk.  are you going to shoot yourself now or use the spunkster's endorsement as evidence that you meet state requirements for an all expenses paid stay at the psychiatric facility of the states choosing.

[BigLebowski]

unlike your ranting about liberul judges 

 

[Pukka Sahib]

.  .  .

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

It is the recent activity of homosexual activists attempting to subvert popular will in individual states which has initiated this entire debate regarding the role of the federal government. Frankly, it is a "federal case" because homosexual activists have made it one.

[Pukka Sahib]

.  .  .

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

No, marriage is a right defined by state law.

Why did Texas recently pass this into law? Could it be because homosexual activists are trying to subvert  the will of the people?

...one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect.

Right. Pukka, are you naive enough to think that this is not the preconceived strategy of homosexual activists? Gay marriage proponents will lose if it is ever brought before the public. You know that, I know that, and homosexual activists know that. Therefore, they have initiated a judicial strategy by which they can bypass the people and subvert popular will.

Expect more states to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Let me add that not only is this all at the instigation of "gay rights" activists but it's all a sham as well. This is about social acceptance, not marriage.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Let me add that not only is this all at the instigation of "gay rights" activists but it's all a sham as well. This is about social acceptance, not marriage.

correctomundo.