(After a host of legal arguments claming that "Massachusetts judges violated the state constitution in legalizing gay marriage)
And there is the irrefutable argument! According to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had NO authority in making a ruling over a marriage issue, and they CERTAINLY had no authority in legalizing same-sex marriage! They are fascists through and through. I suspect they were bought by the gay mafia. In fact, I am sure they were, since the lawsuit was filed by several gay couples who wanted to get married and carried out by, that's right, GLAAD!!!
President Bush should have launched an investigation, and taken action to prevent the high appeals court from blocking the appeal to take it to the Supreme Court. He also should have sent the IRS to breath down the necks of those four prostitutes in the Supreme Court and audit them to see if there were any large sums of money that could not be accounted for. Believe it!
25 comments
President Bush should have launched an investigation He also should have sent the IRS to breath down the necks of those four prostitutes in the Supreme Court and audit them to see if there were any large sums of money that could not be accounted for.
The Republicans have enough problems with possible Federal prosecutor diddling. Oh, sure, I can just Karl Rove siccing the IRS on State judges they don't like. The Anna Nicole Smith thing seems to be winding down - the media could use a good impeachment.
Ugh, more of the 'activist judge' nonsense.
According to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had NO authority in making a ruling over a marriage issue
It´s funny. I always thought that many federal laws were made by sentences such as Roe v/s Wade, or the one who banned compulsory prayer..............it´s called jurisprudence, who gives you now intellectual, let alone moral authority to give a judgement?, how can we believe it, if you've got no idea how your goverment works?, how do you account the mafia for it?, they´re as interested in legalising same-sex marriages as you are. And Bush is not going to lunch any research, he has the lower IQ but he´s intelligent enough to know(or has people who are), to know that, unlike you think, there is no legal basis for that.
Please don't suggest burdening our esteemed president. Fucking up the Mideast, destroying our military, tarnishing America's reputation throughout the world, and facilitating the creation of more terrorists and enemies of all sorts keeps him too busy to get to anything else these days.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but in all fairness to this guy, the Goodridge decision was quite controversial. I wouldn't say that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court violated the state constitution, but they did make an awfully big (and unprecedented) change in the law--one which could easily be seen as a policy decision.
You know what's really funny? 2/3 of those judges were appointed by Conservative, Republican Governors.your activist judges, buddy.
You would not believe the level of idiocy that the anti-gay bigots spewed in the wake of that decision (the deepest-pocketed of them all being a retired lawyer and his wife, who share a seething hatred for the New York Times -- they hold them responsible for the gay marriage decision in some kind of conspiracy theory). Lots of accusations of corruption, apparently based on nothing stronger than not liking the decision, along with a furious barrage of ads and messages asking the four judges in favor of gay marriage to step down or be impeached.
Since this was posted by an ignorant moron who hates me for being right, obviously my argument has not been fairly represented. So here is the main law that the four Red coats in Black robes violated of the state constitution, and this is but one of many.
There are obscenity laws despite the First Amendment. There are gun control laws despite the Second Amendment. For a century there, racist crackers made Jim Crow laws despite the Fourteenth Amendment.
Believe it!, you may have legitimate grounds for your opinion. But spewing terms like "gay mafia" and calling Supreme Court justices "prostitutes" and "red coats" makes you look like a fool. Tone down the paranoid conspiracy bullshit and the seething homophobia, and people just might take you seriously.And it is the right thing to do.
And there is the irrefutable argument! According to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had NO authority in making a ruling over a marriage issue, and they CERTAINLY had no authority in legalizing same-sex marriage!
You ever notice how people make statements like this and then make no attempt whatsoever to prove it?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
