It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
However, he appeared more genuine & real than both Gore and Kerry, who came across as trying too hard. Same goes for Romney, who was another panderer.
Even though I can't stand his policies more than most, I don't think he's a bad man. Just not very bright, and yes, he surrounded himself with some loons like Rumsfeld, Cheney & Wolfowitz, not to mention Condy.
:))
Well, as far as I'm concerned, they are all gay :-P
Renard.
Democracy is dead in the US.
Money talks instead, but that has always been the case in US politics.
You can argue whether or not homosexual marriage should be legal, but leave it up the people of the states, not to 5 unelected people who use less than scholarly and bogus constitutional arguments to rewrite the laws.
If homosexuals can marry, why not a father and daughter or Mother and Son, or a woman and her cat? If their 14 amendment rights to be happy are being denied, they when not let them marry.
No now come the decades of businesses and churches refusing a gay couple's business and the following lawsuits. Hold tight.
Apparently, Iran has the same disregard for a Constitution as some people on this board.
The American constitution is outdated. The whole thing should be thrown out and a completely new one should be written... but only after the end of the two-party system.
I agree that this is too important an issue to be decided in a blanket nature by a supreme court - move to the UK where Parliament is sovereign over the courts. In England, legislation was introduced by the elected House of Commons to legalise gay marriage, not by unelected proactive judges. That is the different between the UK and the so-called "land of the free". Give me the UK any day.
You'd like it: homosexuality is illegal.
GFY. You don't know my views on homosexuality.
Doesn't the Supreme Court supersede state laws? I thought that was its purpose. What's unconstitutional about yesterday's decision exactly?
No, the US Constitution supersedes State Law over Federal issues. In fact, the US Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The US is a nation of States. 14 amendment is always used by liberal court activists to invent a 'right' whenever they wan.
My understanding is that the 14th Amendment (and in particular Section 1 about equal rights for all) came into effect after the civil war, which began due to the issue of slavery (which was an obvious violation of equal rights). It's my understanding also that the 14th Amendment is a part of the US Constitution as it currently stands, and therefore is the law of the land, signed onto by all states.
So again, I don't understand what's wrong with yesterday's decision, which says that preventing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment (which is part of the Constitution). I would think that preventing gay marriage is a violation of equal rights.
It is very simple, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage. It is that simple.
Don't think I'm off the mark. But care to enlighten. Politely, if you have any manners.
I'm not a constitutionalist but that's how I understood it too.
It applies if you want to make any idiotic belief into a constitutional right. Does the 14th amendment allow a father to marry his daughter? What about a mother to marry her son? Can sisters marry bothers? Can a man marry two women under the 14th amendment?
These are valid questions in my opinion.
However, I think in any culture these practices are considered unwholesome & unacceptable (except the last one perhaps in some muslim areas).
Gay marriage is increasingly being accepted everywhere, so I believe it's a different argument. The world is moving in this direction culturally. So to resist would be a backward move.
And it speaks volumes about what you think of homosexuals. See, you'll be happy in Iran.
Hold on a second. We were told in the Per Curiam that people who were not allowed to marry were being denied "dignity". Why would want to deny a Father and his daughter their dignity by not allowing them to marry?