Dog Snot Diaries

I write, you whine….

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Activist Judge in New Jersey?


posted by Geoffrey at 5:28 pm


  1. I’m going out to buy a shitload of foie gras before they start telling me it’s illegal.

    Comment by Hondo — October 25, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

  2. It’s not that you are running out of places to live, asshole. It is more like your ideals are running out their time. Racism, sexism, homophobia, male chauvinism, chest beating, war mongering and plain old intolerence really have no place in a civilized society.

    Seriously, what the fuck do YOU care Geoff, if two gays get married? How does it affect you? It doesn’t. It onlt bothers you because of your fear of gays.

    Comment by oooo — October 25, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

  3. Neocunt, you’re too stupid to understand the post. Could you point out where I said I give a shit if homos get married? I could give a fuck. I’ve stated my position on homo and hetero marriage numerous times.

    You’re just so worried I’m going to keep you from boffing your uncle you’re unable to see I’m talking about judges who could give a shit about the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if they’re legislating homo marriage or Bane’s Bill.

    Comment by Geoffrey — October 25, 2006 @ 9:11 pm

  4. But you show your true unmitigated raw hypocrisy Geoff when you sit here and say things like Don’t we have a Constitution anymore, or just a panel of judges that make the rules? yet you can defend when the conservative majority of the supreme court can give unprecedented powers to the president to override constitutional laws. Where is your outrage for that?

    So, not only do I point out that you are a raging homophobe, but also a flaming hypocrite!

    Comment by oooo — October 25, 2006 @ 10:26 pm

  5. Ooops. More lies from Neocunt. Would you care to provide evidence to back up a single accusation you just made, or are you going to continue spewing lies then running away.

    Don’t be mad at me because you couldn’t understand the post. Blame your public school system. You’re the child left behind.

    Comment by Geoffrey — October 25, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

  6. yeah…this is what rational debate looks like.

    Comment by Sistereinstein — October 26, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

  7. I want to join in. First off, I love fois gras. It tastes like heaven.

    I’m not sure that this instance really qualifies as “Activist Judges?. Maybe it is. I understand that the process of making law doesn’t include judges. Their role is to enforce and interpret it. I think we should look at the actual laws banning gay marriage, instead of having judges write the law. If they need to be changed, then the state houses can write a bill.

    Judges have the power to strike down lesser laws when they come into conflict with greater ones. The question is if this instance qualifies.

    Although gay marriage isn’t a very important issue to me, it probably is to gay folks.

    Comment by brando — October 27, 2006 @ 12:07 am

  8. Good point. I suppose “activist judge” would depend on what they do 180 days from now if the marriage laws aren’t made equal.

    Comment by Geoffrey — October 27, 2006 @ 7:51 am

  9. Geoffrey won’t tell you where he really stands on this issue, but he doesn’t have to. It is apparent from his insults where he stands.

    Me? I could care less about this issue. They want to get married, they should be allowed to get married and be afforded the same rights as anyone else. It doesn’t affect me either way. My problem is, these bible thumpers and homophobes claiming this is a threat to national security and will tear the moral fibers of this country apart are nothing more than racist hate mongers. No wonder they turn to the GOP.

    Comment by oooo — October 27, 2006 @ 9:14 am

  10. More blubbering from Neocunt, no substance.


    Comment by Geoffrey — October 27, 2006 @ 9:21 am

  11. And you are just burting at the seams with substance, aren’t you. You are about as emtpy and heartless as the suits you wear.

    Comment by oooo — October 27, 2006 @ 10:01 am

  12. I am new to this blog and I hope to see more rational discussions than what I’ve read so far between Geoffrey and oooo.

    I believe that each state has the right to define marriage and that the federal government has no business in this matter.

    So I guess my question is – what will be the trickle down effect as the states decide that GARRIAGE couples should have the same status vs the traditional marriage?

    Anyone one here remember when Divorce used to be taboo in recent generations? What were the fears when that change began to occur…and what are we finding out today

    Any thoughts on this?

    Comment by Sistereinstein — October 27, 2006 @ 11:27 am

  13. Sistereinstein,

    You won’t see any rational discussions with oooooo. He’s a troll that’s been haunting this blog for years. All we do now is make fun of him.

    As to your question, I agree with you. It should be a state issue. Let the people vote, not the courts.

    In my opinion, divorce should still be taboo. If people took marriage seriously, many of the problems we have today with the welfare state and single parent homes would be much less.

    Comment by Geoffrey — October 27, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

  14. Only is Geoff’s world does everything fit soo perfectly well. Everything is either black or white. That is the problem with Geoff.
    Geoff is under this impression that we really live in a Democracy here – no, sorry, this is a Democratic Republic. The majority rules but not absolutley – it rules with checks and balances. The minority do have a say, and in this case, the minority being the gays. In this case the majority are not the best to decide. Why? Because they vote with their hearts and not what is interperated by law. In this case, the courts, who happen to be the experts on how to interperate the law, should decide. This is how the minority get a voice and say in the matter. Otherwise, the minority, in this case the gays will always be a minority, can stand on equal footing with heterosexuals. There is a reason not every issue is a referrendum vote – because some issues are far too complex for a yay or nay vote. Again, Geoffrey cannot comprehend this because he lives in a black and white world.

    Yes, this should be a state by state issue. And Geoff SAYS that is what he wants, but he is in full support of a constitutional ammendment that his beloved Bush/Cheney want.

    Comment by oooo — October 27, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

  15. That’s what I love about ooooo aka NeoCunt. You don’t have to try to make him look stupid. You just let him do it on his own.

    You should have stayed awake in civics. We aren’t a “Democratic Republic”. We’re a Constitutional Republic. Are you familiar with a Constitutional Republic?

    Perhaps you should go educate yourself on how laws and amendments are passed, and how our voting system actually works. Then come back and amend your statement. While you’re at it, dig up something that substantiates any of the ridiculous claims you’ve made against me.

    You won’t. You’ll blame your ignorance on your kvm switch.

    Comment by Geoffrey — October 27, 2006 @ 9:20 pm

  16. Marriage is the most important union made in society. It directs the development of our youth and their conception of self respect. Marriage example sets the tone between the interaction of the sexes and the respect levels between them. I agree it would be positive and refreshing to live in society that supported healthy marriage commitments between a man and a woman and divorce was not prevalent, but very rare.

    Comment by bonnie — October 28, 2006 @ 12:30 am

  17. NJ decided 4-3 that it’s lawmakers must rewrite the laws to agree with what they personably feel they should be, even if there is no Constitutional reason for it.

    Worse: they decided that issue 7-0. The only reason for the nominal 4-3 split was because the three nominally dissenting judges didn’t think the majority went far enough.

    Comment by Xrlq — October 28, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

  18. Neocunt, your accusation that Geoff is a homophobe is completely ridiculous and without basis. An asshole often, but a homophobe never.

    Comment by Packy — October 29, 2006 @ 11:06 am

  19. In response to bonnie’s comment — I am not disagreeing with your last post but my opinion is that the NOW movement is 95% to blame for the doing away with social taboos and traditional social structure and most people aren’t aware of how it’s changing right before our eyes, in this generation.

    When I turned 13, I was given a copy of ‘Our Bodies Ourselves’ I discarded it when I became pregnant…but probably should’ve had it burned ceremoniously.

    Now that a ton of time has passed, I am keenly aware of how our children are being socialized and being taught political rhetoric disguised as historical fact. It’s not just in universities kiddies.

    …more later

    Comment by Sistereinstein — October 30, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

  20. Yes, political rhetoric presented as historical fact can be problematic even in grade levels of public education. As you pointed out, The influence of NOW had a dramatic impact on changing the traditional family unit and respective roles of the sexes in society. Also, the impact of the media has contributed to changing our social structure by creating ideal images that reflected and in some cases helped pioneer alternative value systems.

    Comment by bonnie — October 30, 2006 @ 9:58 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress