Gay judges

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?

Ok just who is the gay judge on the Supreme Court? None that I know of and this court is NOT liberal by any means.

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?

Wow, you are not only wrong on the issues, But homophobic as well. You know that it has been theorized that many, if not most homophobes, actually are repressing homosexual desires. Personal best regards.

[Guest]

- - - l -

[Guest]

Wow, you are not only wrong on the issues, But homophobic as well. You know that it has been theorized that many, if not most homophobes, actually are repressing homosexual desires. Personal best regards.

Great Post!!! :clap2:

[Guest]

That's the basics of the liberals and there agenda! Homophobic and Theories.

[Guest]

Wow, you are not only wrong on the issues, But homophobic as well. You know that it has been theorized that many, if not most homophobes, actually are repressing homosexual desires. Personal best regards.


Gay judge and getting choked, or on lawyer welfare

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?


Leading contender for the most asinine post of the day ... and that takes a LOT on this forum

[Guest]

that's like saying married judges can't rule on divorce decrees---puh leese

[Guest]

that's like saying married judges can't be allowed to rule on divorce cases, or single judges can't rule either

[Guest]

what the heck is lawyer welfare?

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?

Perhaps you should take a class to learn to read. Start with the US Constitution.

[Guest]

An anus and an *******?
An anus would never say what you did.

[Guest]

An anus and an *******?
An anus would never say what you did.

I believe the aminisitration and the moderators have allowed this forum to deteriorate to an unacceptable level.

You do know who each of us are and I urge you to warn those who are intent on continuing to purposely degrade this site and they have others in the past.

And if they continue, then ban them as you have in the past.

I do not think any of us want to allow to have the pleasure of shutting this forum down.

I know by opting in we agree to self police the forum.
A brief review of the past week alone will surely demonstrate that does not work.

I for one will go into to the self ignore mode. Too many of us have wasted our time trying to get the couple of antagonizers to recognize others opinions. Not change theirs at all. Just to remain civil and stop the lower than school yaed level taunting that they relish!

[Guest]

I believe the aminisitration and the moderators have allowed this forum to deteriorate to an unacceptable level.

You do know who each of us are and I urge you to warn those who are intent on continuing to purposely degrade this site and they have others in the past.

And if they continue, then ban them as you have in the past.

I do not think any of us want to allow to have the pleasure of shutting this forum down.

I know by opting in we agree to self police the forum.
A brief review of the past week alone will surely demonstrate that does not work.

I for one will go into to the self ignore mode. Too many of us have wasted our time trying to get the couple of antagonizers to recognize others opinions. Not change theirs at all. Just to remain civil and stop the lower than school yaed level taunting that they relish!

Dear Guest: I disagree and it is why I am addressing you as guest because it served as a means of not identifying anyone and why I end my post with Personal Best Regards: which by the way was hijacked by one of those deteriorating posters . Further there is no personal message or editing available. I suggest that if you are offended then please don't log onto this forum or skip over what offends you and better yet respond civilly to their uncivil rants and deny them their cheap thrill

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Wow, you are not only wrong on the issues, But homophobic as well. You know that it has been theorized that many, if not most homophobes, actually are repressing homosexual desires. Personal best regards.

Dear Guest: Again if you are going to hijack my closing at least show some class. Progressive misuse the term homophobic but then they have overreach on every issue.

But first a quick lesson SCOTUS unable to find any legal grounding for gay marriage in the US Constitution under either the due process clause or the equal protect clause of the 14th Amendment caused Justice Kennedy to mention nine times the word "dignity" in the majority opinion upon which Justice Thomas jokingly referred to as the dignity clause. In plain english their decision was politically and not legally decided. Perhaps you think what's the difference its a good thing. and my response is what next will SCOTUS find that offends them and they decide it needs to be fixed irrespective of the Constitution and the rule of law. Perhaps they will find people like you who misuse homophobic to be enemies of the state to be dealt with? the point being whose their next target? Banana Republics act this way not America

You honestly think the only reason people like me are against same sex marriage (an oxymoron in itself) is because we are homophobic that we fear and hate of gays. My friend its about the unnatural act. its about the fact that progressives are changing the meaning of a man and a woman Its about the state of marriage that has defined the union to be between one man and one woman throughout the ages. its about by its redefinition opening a pandora's box. If you think Roe v Wade stirred up a cultural war
this recent decision by SCOTUS is Roe v Wade on steroids
There was and had been in play every means available to the gay community to protect their rights secure their estates etc.

The push for same-sex marriage was about only one thing and that was a demand that gay sex be considered normal. Well progressive have a gift for euphemism such as man mad disasters meaning conflict they don't want to deal with, investment meaning entitlement and wealth redistribution schemes to reward lazy people or people who cant manage their lives.
Now they have invented a new euphemism the "new normal" like in Bruce Jenner their pin up ???????. In my view my compassion leans toward Bruce your troubled be troubled in private. Perhaps this is all a hoax meant to deliver a big jack pot . either way its degrading and i wonder where Kennedy's "dignity clause"fits?

Dignity begets dignity it can't be gifted. God (Nature if you prefer) biologically devised a man and woman to complement one another to procreate and children benefit from this experience of having both a mother and a father. Traditional family has been the bedrock of civilization since the beginning of time .

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Wow, you are not only wrong on the issues, But homophobic as well. You know that it has been theorized that many, if not most homophobes, actually are repressing homosexual desires. Personal best regards.


Lou. You are fooling no one with the personal best regards.

[Guest]

Lou. You are fooling no one with the personal best regards.

Lou ? He never changes, does he ?

[Guest]

I am trying to figure what I am doing wrong. I have four post never hit the board.

[Guest]

I give up. I did the exact same thing here where my post got accepted on another thread, and it never appeared. This is the fifth time this has happens to me. Is there a waiting time for longer posts to appear? Can you post twice on the same logon in? I have emailed the administrators, and received no answer. This is frustrating as hell. Could use some help.

[Guest]

It just got worse. Everyone of my other posts said that they were accepted. The above didn't, but it is here. I am so confused.

[Guest]

This one appears to be a regular post, and not a quick post, which my last post was.

[Guest]

I give up. I did the exact same thing here where my post got accepted on another thread, and it never appeared. This is the fifth time this has happens to me. Is there a waiting time for longer posts to appear? Can you post twice on the same logon in? I have emailed the administrators, and received no answer. This is frustrating as hell. Could use some help.

To my knowledge, unless some drastic hange have been made, there is no delay.

A few times I have ht the "PREVIEW POST" button at the bottom and thought I hit the "SUBMIT REPLY BUTTON"

Try a few test posts and for what it is worth I usually hit prior to typing either "QUOTE POST" or "POST REPLY"

Just send some test posts. They probably will make more sense than one of my regular posts.

[Guest]

I don't understand why Gay fed judges are allowed to rule on gay marriages ruling. Is the law suppose to no conflict of interest? The current ruling full of gay judges. No wonder it passed. This has be set up every since the Clinton presidenticy. Even the lower districts are full of gay judges. IMO No Supreme Court judges should be made for life. IMO also there needed to be age limit. Couple need to be in nursing homes IMO. All judges should be voted in by the people. That way if they rule against the masses they can be voted out. But the lawyer system based on I get paid regardless. Lawyer welfare isn't it?

Amazing how all courts are packed with gay judges, isn't it, according to the OP.

Under that same logic, wouldn't a court full of anti-gay judges be so biased so their ruling against gays be wrong?

By the way, the majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage. Check out the results of the Rasmussen polls.

[Guest]

I would not back a bet on the claI'm "most Americans favor gay marriage"

Was that a closet claim?