http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot_1.html
A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was swiftly defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.
It must be strange to live in some backward state where this would still be an issue anyone took seriously.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gay marrige sae in Massachussetts
Gay marrige sae in MassachussettsFollow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
You do realize that the significance isn't that the ban failed to pass in a legistlature heavily controlled by Democrats, right?
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year. You know? That thing were the actual citizens get to voice their opinions on something. The leaders of the legistlature held off on voting until they had lobbied enough folks (read "bribed" or otherwise coerced) to ensure that the bill would not get the 50 votes needed to put it on the ballot.
This was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard. Otherwise, why wait? If the opposition to gay marriage is so small an unimportant, why go to such lengths to prevent a ballot referendum? Why *not* let the people say what they want?
Good thing you libs are all about "the people" though...
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year. You know? That thing were the actual citizens get to voice their opinions on something. The leaders of the legistlature held off on voting until they had lobbied enough folks (read "bribed" or otherwise coerced) to ensure that the bill would not get the 50 votes needed to put it on the ballot.
This was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard. Otherwise, why wait? If the opposition to gay marriage is so small an unimportant, why go to such lengths to prevent a ballot referendum? Why *not* let the people say what they want?
Good thing you libs are all about "the people" though...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
his was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard.
It was heard. See, that's how representative Democracy works. Had they elected enough representatives to garner enough votes, and we're talking about a threshold of 25% here, there would be a ballot question regarding an amendment to the state constitution (which would have absolutely zero chance of passing, incidentally).
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year. You know? That thing were the actual citizens get to voice their opinions on something.
Yeah, it's not a bill. I get more into the legislative process with you, but you'd still get it wrong next time anyway, so I won't bother.
The leaders of the legistlature held off on voting until they had lobbied enough folks (read "bribed" or otherwise coerced) to ensure that the bill would not get the 50 votes needed to put it on the ballot.
Wait. Are you meaning to imply that somehow the leadership in a legislature legally used the parliamentary rules to their advantage? This is a travesty!!! Only when such tomfoolery ceases can we ever hope to restore liberty to the state.
This was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard.
No, this was a political manipulation to save people time and money fighting against a whackjob minority group's attempt to revoke the civil rights of people they don't like. It's exactly the same thing that would happen if ten people put forth an initiative to amend the state constitution to prevent black people from owning dogs.
Otherwise, why wait? If the opposition to gay marriage is so small an unimportant, why go to such lengths to prevent a ballot referendum? Why *not* let the people say what they want?
They said it when they overwhelmingly elected pro gay marriage representatives, ousting most of those who voted in favor of the initiative in it's first session.
Good thing you libs are all about "the people" though...
I agree. It is a good thing. I'm glad they system works so well.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Interestingly, the Microsoft templates make more sense than gbaji
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
I stupidly spent about 3 minutes thinking I'd lost the ability to read Latin before looking that up. I admit I was unaware of it's existence.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I stupidly spent about 3 minutes thinking I'd lost the ability to read Latin before looking that up. I admit I was unaware of it's existence.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Cicero > Smash
Well obscure random chunks of Cicero amalgamated together certainly.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I stupidly spent about 3 minutes thinking I'd lost the ability to read Latin before looking that up. I admit I was unaware of it's existence.
I only knew it from a long career of reading The Straight Dope
Edited, Jun 14th 2007 6:23pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I wish that I could read, speak, and write Latin...
Smasharoo wrote:
his was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard.
It was heard. See, that's how representative Democracy works. Had they elected enough representatives to garner enough votes, and we're talking about a threshold of 25% here, there would be a ballot question regarding an amendment to the state constitution (which would have absolutely zero chance of passing, incidentally).
Hmmmm... Guess you just skipped past this portion then:
Quote:
The three leaders - along with gay rights activists - spent the last several days intensely lobbying a dozen or more state representatives and state senators who had previously supported the amendment but signaled that they were open to changing their positions.
Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
There were sufficient legistlators supporting the amendent to put it before the people. That is, until the lobbying process occured and reduced that number to below the 50 mark needed. Of course, that's easy to do when you have the majority in the house and can control when it's put to a vote since you can simply delay it until you've convinced the number you need to vote your way.
I suppose representative democracy was "working" here though. Look. If the amendment had no chance of passing, why go through so much effort to prevent it from being put on the ballot? It's not like they just took a vote and it didn't get enough support. It had enough support, so they delayed the vote until they could make sure it wouldn't pass.
What are they afraid of? You'd think, if this was such a clear mandate fro the people, that they'd want to put this on the ballot to further show those opposed to gay marriage just how much the people don't agree with them. That would be a much more powerful victory, don't you think?
So why the effort to keep it off the ballot?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'll never understand the mentality that a majority should EVER decide upon the rights of a minority. That's why we HAVE representation for minorities throughout so many facets of society.
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Look. If the amendment had no chance of passing, why go through so much effort to prevent it from being put on the ballot? It's not like they just took a vote and it didn't get enough support.
Actually it's exactly like that. You see, they didn't get enough votes.
Welcome to what I like to refer to as "reality".
Enjoy your brief stay.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Sure. But it actually had enough votes until the party that had the majority held up the vote until they could lobby enough folks away to ensure it didn't get the 50 it needed.
Here's what's strange though. The amendment was never going to pass. There was no risk of it not passing. So it's not like they spent all that effort to affect any actual change to the state constitution. What they spent the effort doing was ensuring that the 50 votes required to put a referendum on the subject on the state ballot could not be met.
Why do that? What's the harm in getting a referendum vote on this? Why not see what percentage of the voting population actually think there should or should not be an amendment against gay marriage?
That's the point I'm trying to get at here. The lobbying was not done to defeat the amendment. The amendment never had anywhere near enough votes to pass no matter what. So why lobby? To prevent "the people" from being able to weigh in on the subject?
Why? As Nexa points out, just because you hold a majority does not mean you get to ignore the minority. At a minimum, why not let the referendum go through and actually find out where the people stand on the issue?
What possible harm could there be to the gay rights movement? Unless the fear is that there's more support among the people then is reflected in their legistlature, but if that's the case then there *is* a problem with the representation on this issue, now isn't there?
Can't have it both ways. If they were truely speaking for such an overwhelming majority there there should be no reason to expend any special efforts to block a referendum on the issue. The fact that they did speaks volumes about the issue.
Here's what's strange though. The amendment was never going to pass. There was no risk of it not passing. So it's not like they spent all that effort to affect any actual change to the state constitution. What they spent the effort doing was ensuring that the 50 votes required to put a referendum on the subject on the state ballot could not be met.
Why do that? What's the harm in getting a referendum vote on this? Why not see what percentage of the voting population actually think there should or should not be an amendment against gay marriage?
That's the point I'm trying to get at here. The lobbying was not done to defeat the amendment. The amendment never had anywhere near enough votes to pass no matter what. So why lobby? To prevent "the people" from being able to weigh in on the subject?
Why? As Nexa points out, just because you hold a majority does not mean you get to ignore the minority. At a minimum, why not let the referendum go through and actually find out where the people stand on the issue?
What possible harm could there be to the gay rights movement? Unless the fear is that there's more support among the people then is reflected in their legistlature, but if that's the case then there *is* a problem with the representation on this issue, now isn't there?
Can't have it both ways. If they were truely speaking for such an overwhelming majority there there should be no reason to expend any special efforts to block a referendum on the issue. The fact that they did speaks volumes about the issue.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji, there's this thing about wasting time. You admitted the amendment was never going to pass, so why should the issue be discussed on government time? If you're really interested in finding the voter's opinion take a poll, defeating a proposal != banning discussion by anti-gay marriage supporters.
Furthermore, I think you really deserve the "No shit" award of 2007 for this comment, especially the bolded part. It's like saying, "He fought tooth and nail to survive the fight" or "She shouted so her voice could be heard." Of course they're going to use the means available to them to persuade the legislature to pass bills they like.
The simple fact is conservatives were outplayed and you can't quit crying about it. There was nothing shady or illegal here. And to beat you to the bunch...No, heavily lobbying senators who are "open to changing their positions" is not shady.
Furthermore,
Gbaji wrote:
Can't have it both ways. If they were truely speaking for such an overwhelming majority there there should be no reason to expend any special efforts to block a referendum on the issue. The fact that they did speaks volumes about the issue.
The simple fact is conservatives were outplayed and you can't quit crying about it. There was nothing shady or illegal here. And to beat you to the bunch...No, heavily lobbying senators who are "open to changing their positions" is not shady.
Nexa wrote:
I'll never understand the mentality that a majority should EVER decide upon the rights of a minority. That's why we HAVE representation for minorities throughout so many facets of society.
Defaulty wrote:
Gbaji, there's this thing about wasting time. You admitted the amendment was never going to pass, so why should the issue be discussed on government time?
Edited, Jun 14th 2007 10:27pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Why? As Nexa points out, just because you hold a majority does not mean you get to ignore the minority. At a minimum, why not let the referendum go through and actually find out where the people stand on the issue?
Because as Nexa pointed out, allowing the majority to make changes to the CIVIL RIGHTS of minority groups is morally and ethically wrong by any standard and that's the question here. Get it? Amending a constitution is a drastic step that should have to meet very strong standards. If instead of Massachusetts, this was an initiative in Maine, which has a tiny non white minority, to limit the civil rights of black people your argument would the same, right? Why not let all the white people vote on what rights the black people should have?
You're a joke.
The legislature represented the will of the electorate, and voted overwhelmingly not to put an offensive question on the ballot who's very existence would have insulted an already oppressed group. That your biggest objection here is that every legal standard was met and parliamentary procedure was followed belies how pathetic of an attempt at argument you're making.
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 12:22am by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Now Joph, let's be nice. Pointing out that they did the exact same thing a year ago is below the belt. I'm not even sure gbaji can redefine that. Unless it's different if it's the national Congress instead of a state one (and by national congress I mean conservative measure and by state I mean liberal **** measure).
and in tomorrows news.....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50439
Allowing the majority to make changes to the CIVIL RIGHTS of minority groups is morally and ethically wrong by any standard and that's the question here. Get it? Amending a constitution is a drastic step that should have to meet very strong standards. If instead of The Netherlands, this was an initiative in Maine, which has a tiny pedophile minority, to limit the civil rights of non pedophile people your argument would the same, right? Why not let all the pedophiles vote on what rights the non pe dophiles people should have?
You're a joke.
The legislature represented the will of the electorate, and voted overwhelmingly not to put an offensive question on the ballot who's very existence would have insulted an already oppressed group. That your biggest objection here is that every legal standard was met and parliamentary procedure was followed belies how pathetic of an attempt at argument you're making.
----------------------------
Disclaimer: Any sick ****** that takes me seriously and comes close enough to either of my kids in the interest of pedophilia will want to have this guy molest them.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50439
Quote:
Pedophiles launch own political party
Dutch activists hope eventually to scrap limit on sexual relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Pedophiles in the Netherlands are registering a political party to press for lowering the legal age of sexual relations from 16 to 12 and allow child **** and bestiality.
On its website, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party declares: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The party, which plans to register tomorrow, says it eventually wants to get rid of the age limit on sexual relations, Reuters reported.
Ad van den Berg, a party founder, told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper a "ban just makes children curious."
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
Although the Netherlands already has liberal policies permitting prostitution and same-sex marriage, opinion polls show the public isn't ready for a pedophile party.
In a survey published today, 67 percent believe promoting pedophilia should be illegal, and 82 percent want the government to do something to stop the party's formation.
"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile activist Ireen van Engelen said, according to Reuters.
In California two years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill dubbed by critics as "The Pedophile Protection Act."
Authored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the new law drastically reduced requirements for mandatory reporting of the known or suspected sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children.
Opponents said it created a loophole for abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, to be exempted from reporting statutory rape, molestation and sexual abuse and gives molesters greater opportunity to be involved with the caregiving of children.
In addition, the new law changed the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act's definition of "sexual assault" to exclude consensual oral copulation, sodomy and sexual penetration between two minors who are both 14 years or older.
Dutch activists hope eventually to scrap limit on sexual relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Pedophiles in the Netherlands are registering a political party to press for lowering the legal age of sexual relations from 16 to 12 and allow child **** and bestiality.
On its website, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party declares: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The party, which plans to register tomorrow, says it eventually wants to get rid of the age limit on sexual relations, Reuters reported.
Ad van den Berg, a party founder, told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper a "ban just makes children curious."
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
Although the Netherlands already has liberal policies permitting prostitution and same-sex marriage, opinion polls show the public isn't ready for a pedophile party.
In a survey published today, 67 percent believe promoting pedophilia should be illegal, and 82 percent want the government to do something to stop the party's formation.
"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile activist Ireen van Engelen said, according to Reuters.
In California two years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill dubbed by critics as "The Pedophile Protection Act."
Authored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the new law drastically reduced requirements for mandatory reporting of the known or suspected sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children.
Opponents said it created a loophole for abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, to be exempted from reporting statutory rape, molestation and sexual abuse and gives molesters greater opportunity to be involved with the caregiving of children.
In addition, the new law changed the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act's definition of "sexual assault" to exclude consensual oral copulation, sodomy and sexual penetration between two minors who are both 14 years or older.
Allowing the majority to make changes to the CIVIL RIGHTS of minority groups is morally and ethically wrong by any standard and that's the question here. Get it? Amending a constitution is a drastic step that should have to meet very strong standards. If instead of The Netherlands, this was an initiative in Maine, which has a tiny pedophile minority, to limit the civil rights of non pedophile people your argument would the same, right? Why not let all the pedophiles vote on what rights the non pe dophiles people should have?
You're a joke.
The legislature represented the will of the electorate, and voted overwhelmingly not to put an offensive question on the ballot who's very existence would have insulted an already oppressed group. That your biggest objection here is that every legal standard was met and parliamentary procedure was followed belies how pathetic of an attempt at argument you're making.
----------------------------
Disclaimer: Any sick ****** that takes me seriously and comes close enough to either of my kids in the interest of pedophilia will want to have this guy molest them.
The sad thing is, there are people who would honestly use that kind of argument Tweelis.
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Ya can't really hold it against them. They're usually white.
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 6:02am by Atomicflea
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 6:02am by Atomicflea
Making parallels between gays and pedOphiles is always clever.
gbaji wrote:
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year.
As a Mass. Resident I will say that people were concerned that a referendum would trigger a partisan fight that would get national attention and take all the time and energy of the media away from actual real concerns, like the budget deficit and the needs of various social service agencies. It's not that important whether Joe Podunk in Easthampton thinks that two men should be married.
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 7:48am by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Atomicflea wrote:
Ya can't really hold it against them. They're usually white.
I hate white people.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that the significance isn't that the ban failed to pass in a legistlature heavily controlled by Democrats, right?
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year. You know? That thing were the actual citizens get to voice their opinions on something. The leaders of the legistlature held off on voting until they had lobbied enough folks (read "bribed" or otherwise coerced) to ensure that the bill would not get the 50 votes needed to put it on the ballot.
This was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard. Otherwise, why wait? If the opposition to gay marriage is so small an unimportant, why go to such lengths to prevent a ballot referendum? Why *not* let the people say what they want?
Good thing you libs are all about "the people" though...
The purpose of the bill was to trigger a referendum on the ballot next year. You know? That thing were the actual citizens get to voice their opinions on something. The leaders of the legistlature held off on voting until they had lobbied enough folks (read "bribed" or otherwise coerced) to ensure that the bill would not get the 50 votes needed to put it on the ballot.
This was political manipulation in order to prevent the voice of the people from being heard. Otherwise, why wait? If the opposition to gay marriage is so small an unimportant, why go to such lengths to prevent a ballot referendum? Why *not* let the people say what they want?
Good thing you libs are all about "the people" though...
Will you ever stop twisting the definition of democracy and the meaning of the constitution to try and support your close-minded view of the world gbaji?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Will you ever stop twisting the definition of democracy and the meaning of the constitution to try and support your close-minded view of the world gbaji?
Are you new here?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Recent Visitors: 243
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (243)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gay marrige sae in Massachussetts
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC