Miss California's comments

you need to figure a way to get that squirrel to shake it some... :cheers:

I'm with you..

 

Odd I thought those who served in the military took an oath to defend the Constitution. Maybe it has some statute of limitations on that oath or just refers to the parts of the Constitution you like ...... :mrgreen: :nopity:

 

Yeah nice try....... show me the words in the constitution Man marries man..

furthermore my conviction lies more in what my spiritual belief is and the teachings than trying to tie together Gay marriage into the constitution and claiming its right when my God that I know and believe tell me otherwise. Sorry but I will take or attempt to get my ticket to heaven thru the Bible in a case as this not the Constitution. So don't call into question my service to this great country over this...

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Point made I don't see it there... speculate all you want...

 

What is incredibly ironic is that through Prop 8 California voters expressed the same opinion of gay marriage as Prejean so she is accurately representing the people of her state. I don't know why that was not discussed more in the news coverage.

Also her answer was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's. She literally could have added the phrase, "I agree with President Obama on this issue..." to the beginning of her answer and it would have been accurate. Here is video of Obama's response to the question of gay marriage in one of the debates last year. He even says part of why he believes marriage is between a man and a woman is because he is a Christian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U&feature=player_embedded

After I watched that video I wanted to ask Perez Hilton if he thought Obama was a dumb b*%@h too.

I heard some people on television say that if she had said the states should decide it would have been better. Obviously they didn't hear her answer because at the very beginning she said (paraphrasing) that she thought it was great that we live in a country where people in the states can choose. I thought her answer was in no way disrespectful to gay people and I was pretty shocked by the booing.

 

That was the same type of argument presented concerning illegal interracial marriage at one time. We all know how the legality of that held up in the reviews over time.

 

Interpretation of the Constitution???? Isn't that what it comes down to on this Wayne???

 

An edit that made your case even worse. The civil union does not provide equal rights nor protection under the law.

From a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office

The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person's eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions--ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)--in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges."(1)

 

According to the vote for Prop 8, she apparently does represent a majority of California (well a majority of the voting population, anyway).

 

i need to dig it up, but I read at least two other judges that said that her answer cost her the crown and that she basically should have just given the answer that they wanted to hear and not what she really believed. Way to give some sort of integrity at all to the competition. Has Trump said anything about it yet?

 

Whether or not the majority of people in California agree with her, she has a right to her opinion, and it should have no bearing on who won the pageant. If she had been inarticulate and vacuous, like that SC contestant who keeps showing up on you tube, I could see that as a reason not to vote for her, but she wasn't - she stated her opinion reasonably, logically, and articulately. Even though I don't agree with her, I certainly don't think she should have lost because of her opinion.

At the same time, I feel like Miss NC's win is being overshadowed by the controversy, and I think that's unfortunate.

 

At the moment, that is only if the state passed a Constitutional Amendment, since the state Constitutions are supposed to mirror the federal Constitutution. :mrgreen:

 

:allears:

 

Wayne where you at on this, you already give it up....

 

What do you want? Maybe you can make a complete and rational question for which there can be an answer.

 

whats so hard about this question Wayne???

 

All US laws connect back to the interpretation of their basis and/or the Constitution.

 

Why the hell did you call into question my service to the Country than based on your interpretation????

What branch of service did you serve in Wayne????

 

Not MY interpretation of the Constitution the COURTS interpretation of the Constitution. As I said:

Maybe you can make a complete and rational question for which there can be an answer.



(Psttt ... where did I limit the question to YOUR service?)