governor.state.tx.us— Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Apr 14, 2009View in Crawl 4
This is exactly the question I wanted to ask. If OP wants to talk about marriage laws and how gay marriage should be a state decision, then how about interracial marriage. Should that be up to the states? How about interfaith marriage? Should it be ok for one state to allow only straight US-native Caucasian Southern Baptists to marry and disallow all other marriages? Because if you leave marriage up to the states then that is EXACTLY what will happen in a number of states.
Thanks for revealing yourself in the as a violent (first paragraph) lunatic (second paragraph) bigot (third paragraph). Revoked citizenship? Lie. Minimum-wage Gestapo? Lie. Jailing journalist? Lie. (The judiciary did that, not the administration/prosecution - in ONE case. Sorry, having a blog doesn't exempt you from having to testify). PS - No one has proposed giving more money to investment banks than your precious messiah. He has W beat by a factor of 10.
More ignorance... ignorance breeds ignorance.Texas alone did not bring Bush to office for eight years - the COUNTRY as a whole did. Evidently you skipped History and Political Science 101 in elementary school. You must have also missed the 2000 and 2004 elections, they we close and controversial. I suggest doing some research before making such asinine statements again.
What exactly is the problem with anyone expecting the federal government to abide by the U.S. Constitution? The power of the federal government is limited by our U.S. Constitution. The alternative to limited power is unlimited power, which most folks should see as a bad idea. There are indeed proposals that appear to exceed the boundaries of federal authority and they should indeed be called on it. The oath every one of these elected officials swore contained a pledge to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
I agree with you that this is not a states' rights vs. gay marriage argument; the problem is that far too many people (libertarians mostly), are making it a states' rights vs. gay marriage argument.
Remind me again why the GOP passed the Patriot Act? I mean the topic of today is about "Liberty" and protecting individual rights, et al. Isn't that a bit hypocritical of ya?
Closed AccountApr 15, 2009
This is exactly the question I wanted to ask. If OP wants to talk about marriage laws and how gay marriage should be a state decision, then how about interracial marriage. Should that be up to the states? How about interfaith marriage? Should it be ok for one state to allow only straight US-native Caucasian Southern Baptists to marry and disallow all other marriages? Because if you leave marriage up to the states then that is EXACTLY what will happen in a number of states.
nofreedom4theusApr 16, 2009
Cool and the fed can stop asking for tax from them also.
mbraynardApr 16, 2009
Thanks for revealing yourself in the as a violent (first paragraph) lunatic (second paragraph) bigot (third paragraph). Revoked citizenship? Lie. Minimum-wage Gestapo? Lie. Jailing journalist? Lie. (The judiciary did that, not the administration/prosecution - in ONE case. Sorry, having a blog doesn't exempt you from having to testify). PS - No one has proposed giving more money to investment banks than your precious messiah. He has W beat by a factor of 10.
Closed AccountApr 16, 2009
More ignorance... ignorance breeds ignorance.Texas alone did not bring Bush to office for eight years - the COUNTRY as a whole did. Evidently you skipped History and Political Science 101 in elementary school. You must have also missed the 2000 and 2004 elections, they we close and controversial. I suggest doing some research before making such asinine statements again.
Closed AccountApr 19, 2009
What exactly is the problem with anyone expecting the federal government to abide by the U.S. Constitution? The power of the federal government is limited by our U.S. Constitution. The alternative to limited power is unlimited power, which most folks should see as a bad idea. There are indeed proposals that appear to exceed the boundaries of federal authority and they should indeed be called on it. The oath every one of these elected officials swore contained a pledge to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
rv361162Apr 19, 2009
I love how some digg down something that is plain as day, or they haven't been paying attention...Links to what? Ron Paul's Tea Party?f**k, ok, where to start.... let me google that for you...<a class="user" href="http://www.thestreet.com/story/10394850/ron-pauls-tea-party-pulls-in-the-green.html">http://www.thestreet.com/story/10394850/ron-pauls- ...</a><a class="user" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-9834602-23.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-9834602-23.html</a>Just f**king google Ron Paul Tea Party December... s**t, was it that hard?
secrityApr 23, 2009
I agree with you that this is not a states' rights vs. gay marriage argument; the problem is that far too many people (libertarians mostly), are making it a states' rights vs. gay marriage argument.
tzmartinMay 7, 2009
Remind me again why the GOP passed the Patriot Act? I mean the topic of today is about "Liberty" and protecting individual rights, et al. Isn't that a bit hypocritical of ya?