- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2012 at 1:31 am #747288
JoBParticipantkootchman..
any religious institution within the state that has a mission to provide services to the homeless has the right to create a homeless encampment on their church property with very limited fees for permits…
and they don’t have to move repeatedly any longer either.
What the city has not done
the church could.
February 16, 2012 at 1:46 am #747289
kootchmanMemberLike I said… if all put the shoulder to the wheel in equivalent manner..not that a church, an organization can solve all the problems… but ya know.. the city has LOTS of vacant lots and properties .far more than the WS church. I don’t think there is one is WS that has that much space .. but they (city) want votes and taxes…. neither of which they suspect N’ville can provide eh? But the point is well made…. someone besides the city government will have to come up with a solution because our city council and office for the homeless by their actions have proven they won’t. After years and years…. we take the hint.
February 16, 2012 at 3:11 pm #747290
kootchmanMemberBut on topic…. there may be a referendum..probably will be. But my spidey sense, is, I don’t think it will pass.. not as much “up iin arms” talk do I hear…and the public with few exceptions is not rabidly anti-same sex marriage. ..as long as a referendum is not scheduled during a general election with hight voter turnouts, I don’t think a repeal is going to get any traction and draw enough negative votes. Who schedules when a referendum is put to the public? I think some may vote for it as an aside while checking off the other boxes/candidates… least I think so. Still prefer a constitutional amendment though.
February 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm #747291
JoBParticipantWe don’t need a constitutional amendment Kootch…
Equal rights are the bedrock of our constitution.
i thought that bedrock mattered to the right..
you sure mention it enough
but of course your bedrock comes with addendums
… unless of course you are a girl or poor or a person of color or an illegal immigrant or not heterosexual or just plain different than a prosperous white male … or maybe even.. unless we don’t like you and don’t want you in our club…
LOL.. now that’s a definition of equality even a god loving gun toting fire breathing patriotic all American man can support….
in America it appears, some people are more equal than others…
February 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm #747292
kootchmanMemberAs you well know, marriage is not a constitutional right. It’s not defined. Those things not specifically delegated to the federal government are states rights. See how difficult it is for you lefties to screw around with our gun rights? You can’t because it’s been affirmed in the constitution. The hill to climb is steep and long. Second, the federal government will not recognize same sex union as of today. IRS will still require single filer status. So, as it now stands, we are expanding the notion that same sex marriage is an equal rights issue. as we can as a soverign state. BTY stop picking on white males… we are the only minority non-protected class in the country. You may not “need” a constitutional amendment… but… it is stronger than a state law which can be overturned by a simple majority vote.
SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.
February 16, 2012 at 8:06 pm #747293
JanSParticipantFebruary 17, 2012 at 2:07 am #747294
kootchmanMemberexactly. We agree on one thing. I assume we will have reciprocity in same sex partner states. The stronger protection, one that cannot be overturned by majority vote would be an amendment to the sates constitution recognizing same sex marriages. A simple voter referendum won’t overturn same sex marriage is it is a constitutionally (state) enshrined right.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.