In article <g0kbvs$67c$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> > In article
> > <3a7f375d-5297-4b8d-aada-e9ca2ea198e9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > carlos <carlosmachina@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 15, 3:57 pm, Filthy Canadian
> >> <MyQueenMumLove...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > Man! Them dudes got it going don't they, eh!
> >> >
> >> > I always did have this thing about my 'lead' dog, Slope!
> >> >
> >> > It's a long way to travel, you know... all across the country...
> >> > but it'll be worth it, eh!
> >> > Yeah, it'll be worth it! When I pound ole' Slope then, it'll be
> >> > legal!
> >> >
> >> > Oh... wait... does that mean I'll have to stay in CA?
> >> > I'm not sure the frogs will take to me and ole' Slope in the same
> >> > bed!
> >> >
> >> > Oh well, only one way to find out, eh!
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/4aajn6
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > As always,
> >> > I B your
> >> > Filthy Stupid Socialist Frog Speaking Canadian
> >> > It's All For The Dogs, Eh
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I really doubt you could find even a dog that would marry you
> >> voluntarily. In California, both parties in the marriage have to
> >> consent to be married.
> >
> > In a Republic, when people vote on something, the government is
> > supposed to respect that vote; not let one person change the very law
> > people wanted to enact.
>
> In a constitutional Republic, when people pass a law and that law is in
> direct conflict with the Constitution, the government is supposed to
repeal
> the law. We are a nation of laws, not men. In that way, we avoid
tyranny
> of the majority.
That is IF it's in the Constitution. The Constitution does not cover
marriage or who or what makes a legal marriage.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan
|
