31 To 0
Nov 4th, 2009 by Frank Knotts
In Maine for the thirty-first time homosexual marriage has been rejected by the voters. This has happened every single time that the issue has been put to a popular vote in thirty-one states. This is the first time that a law passed in a legislature has been repealed by the people. Other such laws were enacted due to activist judges.
Homosexual activist had hoped Maine would be different because of its “MODERATE” to left history of voting.
This once more demonstrates that our political leaders are completely out of touch with those that they are supposed to be “REPRESENTING”.
Voters have shown overwhelmingly that they do not support these sort of attacks on traditional marriage .And yet politicians continue to pander to a minority special interest group.
It also shows that the people are being deficient in their duties as citizens to vote on their principles. We should be returning to that kind of individual thought that made our nation so great for so many years.
You may disagree with me but I wish we could take abortion to the polls also and take it away from the politicians.
Let each state vote on what regulations they desire.
Mike Protack
Let each state vote on what regulations they desire.
They do. Delaware has an anti-abortion law in place. What you are wishing for is the overturning of our Constitution and its system of checks and balances.
What you are wishing for is the overturning of our Constitution and its system of checkand balances.
Where do you find the ‘right’ to abortion in the Constitution? You don’t because it isn’t there; hence, it is strictly a mater for the states under Amendment X.
Of course, liberals found it (the ‘right’ to abortion) in the non-existent ‘penumbra’ of implied rights; yet they continually circumvent the specifically granted right to keep and bear arms, clearly articulated in Amendment II.
Why are Socialist-Democrats such frauds?
I personally favor a federal personhood law under the authority of the 5th and 14th amendment overturning Roe. Then the unborn would have all of the federal protections under the constitution that every other person has. It would be up to the states to figure out ways to protect that person in their jurisdiction and the feds in their own. We learned the lesson of allowing the states to determine if they will protect life, liberty, and property of all persons 150 years ago and passed the civil rights amendments 13-15. That is my view.
“Let each state vote on what regulations they desire.
They do. Delaware has an anti-abortion law in place. What you are wishing for is the overturning of our Constitution and its system of checks and balances.” – noman
You mean the Constitution that the Supreme Court trampled all over with this particular piece of legislation from the bench?
Now let’s get back to marriage. Praise GOD! We are still the USA and not the United States of Sodom. We understand that marriage is between a man and woman not some pc fiction. What encouraged me was the under 30 numbers. Just under half of voters 18 to 29 voted with their elders. That means the victory is sustainable. Now we need to watch the NJ lameduck. Christie is an outspoken defender of traditional marriage and the family. The Dems may try a lame duck push. Every one in NJ needs to call their assemblyman and senator.
Evan is right, the country already reached a balance. Some states like HI, DE, NY, CA had liberal abortion laws and the other states stricter laws. The high court hijacked the entire process and made it almost no law. It had to back away a little over the years but is still outrageous from any constitutional perspective.
They do. Delaware has an anti-abortion law in place. What you are wishing for is the overturning of our Constitution and its system of checks and balances.
Except, of course, that the state cannot enact an anti-abortion law b/c of us — get this — the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.
Where do you find the ‘right’ to abortion in the Constitution? You don’t because it isn’t there; hence, it is strictly a mater for the states under Amendment X.
Actually, part of Roe deals not with the 10th but 9th Amendment which states The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such as the right to privacy, you see. Not that I necessarily agree w/all the reasoning behind Roe, mind you.
We learned the lesson of allowing the states to determine if they will protect life, liberty, and property of all persons 150 years ago and passed the civil rights amendments 13-15.
Except that many believe that forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a violation of that said 13th Amendment!
Why can’t I marry my dog?
I LOVE my dog!
There are some things even a dog won’t do.