Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
One would think that, especially since it says right in the constitution that there shall be no ex-post facto laws, but you'd be wrong. I was shocked also, as were lots of other gun owners.
|
Well, now I know, though I'm not so sure how that's constitutional, much less legal.
Quote:
|
and if this country actually had a supreme court that ruled via the constitution and the rule of law, there wouldn't need to be. We are, however, lorded over by a federal government that makes up rulings on the fly as it wants or needs to.
|
If that were to happen then there would be an awful lot of SCOTUS rulings over the past 40 years that would have been thrown out, which is part great, part not-so-great.
Quote:
|
and for those states, great. They actually went through the process of amending their constitution. It's sad to see that they were goaded in to giving their state governments the power to discriminate though. But that's what happens when we have a nation of cowards.
|
Wait. How were they "goaded" into anything? You don't have to like the process by which they did it, but it's a right allowed to them by their respective constitutions unless the U.S. Constitution, or SCOTUS, says otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
states where gay folk can marry:
* Connecticut
* District of Columbia
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New York
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Vermont
* Iowa
* Oregon
* Washington
|
This isn't totally true.
Only four, five in September, allow SSM to be performed within their borders: NH, NJ, Iowa, Maine and Massachutes. The others provide some sort of recognition for same-sex marriages performed out of state but do not perform them themselves. And, even then, I was asking you what state has legalized SSM by popular vote? The answer is none of them. So I don't understand your whole "move out of the way and be defeated as they have in state after state" quip.