Ebbie: "Frankly, I doubt it."

Frankly, you're wrong...AGAIN!!!!!..but it sure ain't the first time!


Don: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No elected official, including the President, can—constitutionally—give legal status to his or her religious beliefs. Thus, it does not matter what Obama's feelings about same-sex marriage are; neither he, nor the entire Congress—nor the Supreme Court—can, again, constitutionally—abridge the civil rights of any one group of people."

..and NOT to open this endless diatribe between us, homosexual marriages do NOT fall under ANY of the Constitutional..here, I'll C and P it, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The ridiculous thing is, that in the arguments AGAINST homosexual marriage, is that the opponents are using RELIGIOUS arguments, instead of Constitutionally legal arguments, as to what rights they have!..It would be almost the same as if someone was using Sharia law, to argue their slant on things. Fair enough???

That being said, the courts will decide it, not the 'Mudcatters'..and we've beaten each other up enough on this topic.
If the opponents lose, it will be because of the grounds they are basing their argument on. If the proponents win, it will be because, they knocked out the opponents premise.
As far as the freedom to do as people like, that is already screwed up LONG before it got to this issue!

GfS