Kansans Vote to Ammend Constitution on Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corinne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Corinne

Guest
Kansans voted yesterday to define marriage as between a man and a woman, making Kansas the 18th state to pass this ammendment.

News Story
 
Another landslide. I wonder what the numbers would be if 80% of the TV shows didn’t feature “wonderful” homosexual characters. It would probably be 90%. But then again, I’m sure Hollywood and the judicial supremacists know more than us peons.
 
But of course if it’s like our wonderful state the homosexual activists will fight the amendment in court. Even OREGON passed such an amendment and the homosexual rights groups’ hopes were dashed as they spent MILLIONS thinking Oregon might defeat the amendment. Of course now it’s in the hands of the state supreme court as being “unconstitutional” so we may end up like California. Who cares what the people want? Some numbnuts judge will overturn our will

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
But of course if it’s like our wonderful state the homosexual activists will fight the amendment in court. Even OREGON passed such an amendment and the homosexual rights groups’ hopes were dashed as they spent MILLIONS thinking Oregon might defeat the amendment. Of course now it’s in the hands of the state supreme court as being “unconstitutional” so we may end up like California. Who cares what the people want? Some numbnuts judge will overturn our will

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Which is why we must work together to end judicial tyranny. They are playing God. I’m amazed at how many haven’t quite realized this yet and wonder if it will be too late by the time they do.
 
I’m confused, how can a court deem it unconstitutional if it’s part of the constitution?

Or was it just a law they passed? In that case, time to amend the constitution. The judiciary has its place as a check against other powers, but the other powers do have a check against the judiciary. That’s the way it’s meant to be.
 
I wish Massachusetts could vote on this but our CINO legislators won’t let us and the sheeple won’t vote them out…
 
40.png
JimG:
Of course, Kansans were duly scolded for their vote by local media:

kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/columnists/mark_mccormick/11321658.htm
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
Lisa N:
But of course if it’s like our wonderful state the homosexual activists will fight the amendment in court. Even OREGON passed such an amendment and the homosexual rights groups’ hopes were dashed as they spent MILLIONS thinking Oregon might defeat the amendment. Of course now it’s in the hands of the state supreme court as being “unconstitutional” so we may end up like California. Who cares what the people want? Some numbnuts judge will overturn our will

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Lisa:

I can’t see what the supreme court has to do with it. As an amendment, once it passes whatever hurdles are contained in the constitution for amendments, it BECOMES the constitutonal basis for law. Even if it were to be unconstitutional. Remember it was unconstitutional for women to vote, so that the amendment to permit this would also thoretically be unconstitutional. It is the most recent amendment which carries the weight of law.

just my point of view
The Lord’s Peace to you

francesco
 
40.png
Francesco:
Lisa:

I can’t see what the supreme court has to do with it. As an amendment, once it passes whatever hurdles are contained in the constitution for amendments, it BECOMES the constitutonal basis for law. Even if it were to be unconstitutional. Remember it was unconstitutional for women to vote, so that the amendment to permit this would also thoretically be unconstitutional. It is the most recent amendment which carries the weight of law.

just my point of view
The Lord’s Peace to you

francesco
Click to expand...
I wish it were that easy. We’ve passed many laws that are overturned by the courts. We had one that took eleven years to get back and forth through the courts. They’d disallow it and then the law would change slightly and we’d vote it back in and they’d kick it out and we’d change it again and they’d kick it back again.
Brad is right judicial tyranny.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
I wish it were that easy. We’ve passed many laws that are overturned by the courts. We had one that took eleven years to get back and forth through the courts. They’d disallow it and then the law would change slightly and we’d vote it back in and they’d kick it out and we’d change it again and they’d kick it back again.
Brad is right judicial tyranny.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Lisa:

First let me be clear; I do believe and have believed for the better part of my life that the extraordinary tension between the Executive and the Legislature has created a situation where the oversight of the Judiciary, as spelled out in the constitution of the US, has given the Judiciary free rein, and like other pirates they have absconded with the “booty” while no-one was minding the store. We are in a period of judicial tyranny and it will take a strong executive, perhaps to the point of revolt, to undo this evil oligarchy.
I understood you to say that the people of Kansas had voted to Amend the constitution. In that case my previous statement stands. All that is required is that the amendment passes the tests set for it in the Constitution of Kansas. Then it becomes the Law of the Land.
If instead the legislature attempt to pass a law, then the Supremes can enter the fray, usually to the detriment of the people and very document they have sworn to uphold.

Buena Suerte and Peace

Francesco
 
Yay for Kansas!! 🙂

Connecticut just passed a bill to allow same-sex civil unions. Boo Connecticut!!
 
It was fun to vote Tuesday. Not crowded, either.

The thing that really gets me is the people who promote gay marriage are the same ones who have been promoting “diversity” for decades.

Yo, gay folks, in gay couples, WHERE’S the diversity?

Today I called in a comment to the Wichita Eagle’s opinion line, something to the effect of “why do gays want benefits for being married? They already have the benefit of not having to live with someone of the opposite sex.”

The opinion line is anonymous, so sometimes I say intentionally provocative things just to get a response.

Alan
 
40.png
Francesco:
Lisa:

First let me be clear; I do believe and have believed for the better part of my life that the extraordinary tension between the Executive and the Legislature has created a situation where the oversight of the Judiciary, as spelled out in the constitution of the US, has given the Judiciary free rein, and like other pirates they have absconded with the “booty” while no-one was minding the store. We are in a period of judicial tyranny and it will take a strong executive, perhaps to the point of revolt, to undo this evil oligarchy.
I understood you to say that the people of Kansas had voted to Amend the constitution. In that case my previous statement stands. All that is required is that the amendment passes the tests set for it in the Constitution of Kansas. Then it becomes the Law of the Land.
If instead the legislature attempt to pass a law, then the Supremes can enter the fray, usually to the detriment of the people and very document they have sworn to uphold.

Buena Suerte and Peace

Francesco
Click to expand...
You would think and hope so but the opponents of the ban in the article certainly seem to think they still have legal options. With an out-of-control judiciary, anything may be possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top