Is NJ govenor Mcgreevey a gay mole?

LOL, the cockroaches scatter not because of the lights, but because not even they can tolerate the sewage you spew!

I on the other hand have dispelled MANY LIES that you people have used in support of your agenda..(there is no affect to anyone ring a bell? should i make the list? I noticed that after pointing out these myths, they went away) I have shown 1rst amendment considerations that support my contentions, I have cited case history of the 14th amendment that also support this idea, I have shown real examples of social discrimination in both government and private situations all of which ARE LEGAL and protected. and ultimatly i have shown that marriage is an agreement not a right. I have asked again and again why is it wrong for a society to say NO to adopting any idea institutionally into the culture if they do not wish it, thru democratic means, and have supported this contention.

You may have dispelled lies in your own twisted mind, but not in reality. Also, the obscure references you have made to the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence not only prove NOTHING, but make you look all the more foolish by trying to link them gay marriage. And PLEASE show me where you have shown marriage is not a right, again, maybe in your head. Not to mention how sad it is that you are making such an effort to study the Constitution, and other Documents, tirelessly, as if you are a prosecutor or something, NOBODY is on trial, except again, maybe in your head. None of us are under any obligation to prove our opinions. But one must wonder, why would somebody make such an effort, yet say they are not biggots or homophobic? Just your deep concern for rule of law, well I got news for you, there's alot of other laws being broken that may even directly affect you, perhaps you should focus your great prosecuting skills elsewhere.

Whiney losers all!!!

Only one person whining here.

27jd SEEMED to at least learn how to be civil and try to stick to the points more (thankfully as so many members seemed to question his abrasive avoidance policy)

So many members? Only one, Arkaleus, the American turned radical Islamic jihadist, was seriously angry with me, great choice of allies, by the way where's he been lately, probably taken into custody by Homeland Security. I'm glad he and I disagreed so strongly. The others were only taking a friendly jab at my stubborness.

Yet 27jd too has fallen back not upon some research, or links to supporting theories or something more than emotive assumptions, but has regressed to attacking the messenger instead of daring to answer questions i pose with a simple yes or no.

Once again, I'm not defending anybody on trial here, I have better things to do with my time than research heavily the legality of gay marriage, mostly because I'M STRAIGHT, also I have no interest or obligation to "back up" my opinion on this matter.




Yay, it's like a Cosmo quiz (we'll call it a CazMo quiz)!
But I will explain my answer and not give you the chance to explain them for me.

1) is it wrong for a democratic society to define itself by adopting/rejecting proposed idealoy.

2)is it ok for ANY SIMG to use devicive language and tactics to get what it is seeking, at the expense of others rights?

3)Is it ok for a quest for suggested rights to superceed preexisting ones?

4)is it ok to use illegal means to enact a political agenda?

5)Is marriage nessisary for a citizen to be equal to another citizen?

6)Are those that are married, "more equal" as citizens to those that are single?

7)Are there legal forms of discrimination in effect in the USA now?

8)Do people have the right to gather into groups as they choose without accepting people that do not expouse the groups core values?

1. Yes, if that society claims to be "free".

2. No, but gays are not a SIMG, they are are segment of society and part of our diverse culture.

3. Yes, if those pre-existing rights interfere with the individual rights of law-abiding citizens.

4. No, but alot of political agendas are achieved illegally.

5. Yes, in order to recieve certain amenities such as cheaper auto insurance etc.

6. Yes and No, depends who's asking and why.

7. No, no forms of discrimination against law-abiding citizens would be legal.

8. Yes, but they CANNOT interfere or vote against the rights of the said excluded citizens.

I suspect that you will all flee and have secretly (u2u) decided behind closed doors (much like corrupt politicians) to just VANISH and not actually talk about the points.

No, I will humor you this one last time.

Go on, get into the bash CAZ line....demonize me

Caz the martyr, you do a good enough job demonizing yourself.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by 27jd]

Before i come back and debate with 27jd lets add some new info about Mcgreevey potentially using his power illegally.

8/27/04
Emergency election hearing scheduled
TRENTON -- A federal District Court judge in Trenton yesterday scheduled an emergency hearing to hear arguments concerning a special gubernatorial election, after Gov. Jim McGreevey announced he was resigning in November.
U.S. District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. yesterday scheduled a Sept. 8 hearing at 8:30 a.m.
McGreevey -- who on Aug. 12 said he was gay and had a "shameful" extramarital affair with a former male employee -- announced he would resign Nov. 15, after the election date.
His post-election departure would mean a fellow Democrat, Senate President Richard Codey, would serve as governor until after the 2005 election.
But a federal lawsuit filed on Aug. 16 by two Princeton lawyers charges that McGreevey has effectively created a vacancy, and that by staying in office until it is not possible to hold a special election, he is depriving voters of their constitutional rights, including due process.
The hearing comes after the Sept. 3 deadline for a special election to be held this November, but the group who filed the case says the September deadline is not important in this case.
"Governor McGreevey need not physically leave office prior to September 3 for the special election provision to take effect," Princeton attorney Bruce Afran argues in a written brief.
Afran filed the lawsuit with Carl Mayer, a former Green Party candidate for the House of Representatives.
"His resignation announcement on August 12, is sufficient to trigger the vacancy provision for purposes of a special election even though the Governor ..will continue to exercise his full powers through November 15, at which time his elected successor will take office," the brief states.
Other state courts have reached the same conclusion.
The Illinois Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation presented by McGreevey's resignation.
In 1969, former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon, while serving as a state senator, resigned his position two months in advance of taking office as Illinois Lieutenant Governor.
That court ruled that once Simon made his intentions to resign known, a vacancy was created. Not the effective date of his resignation, but the act, and the governor scheduled a special election to elect Simon's successor to serve out his unexpired term.
And just this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a resignation of a state senator gave rise to a vacancy for calling a special election even though the resignation was not to take effect for two months and the incumbent was to continue in office during that time.
Here again, a state high court rejected the argument that the incumbent's holding over for two months prevented the creation of a vacancy for calling a special election.
Afran noted that the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed Frank Lautenberg to be put on the 2002 ballot in place of scandal-tainted Sen. Bob Torricelli about a month before Election Day.
Afran also questioned why the attorney general's office is representing both the governor and the state, suggesting that the governor is interested in passing the office to a crony, while state residents are interested in having an election.
Chuck Davis, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said the dual representation is proper since "the relief sought in this case is for a state interest, a special election."
Afran's lawsuit claims that McGreevey has declared, "he is unable to govern and to continue to carry out the duties of his office and that he could no longer continue in office due to threats of blackmail and extortion."
Afran contends, just as with the Torricelli withdrawal, McGreevey's statement created a vacancy. He contends four other states' Supreme Court have said vacancies are triggered when they are announced.
McGreevey's spokesmen have denied the resignation was timed to avoid a special election, asserting that it was set to ensure a smooth transition.

Lets look here
laywers contend that " he (Mcgreevey) is depriving voters of their constitutional rights, including due process.
OMG! MORE depravation of what? CONSTITUTIONAL rights!!!!.
Im so glad im not the only one that sees this.

How did the lawyere come to this leap of logic? By looking at legal case history!!! OMG again, imagine that, by looking at interpretations of the law!!! Yet 27jd questions,

how sad it is that you are making such an effort to study the Constitution, and other Documents, tirelessly, as if you are a prosecutor or something, NOBODY is on trial, except again, maybe in your head.

Hmm, while no PERSON is on trial, it sure seems that these ISSUES are before the courts now doesnt it. I think they were on the California courts mind as well...should i cut and past it again or can you just scan back on this thread to see these SAME issues of violating citizens being asked there too?
(Close your eyes, thisisnt really happening...LMAO at complete and total denial of reality!!!!)

Laywers cite on their cases defense...."four other states' Supreme Court have said vacancies are triggered when they are announced."
They also "questioned why the attorney general's office is representing both the governor and the state, suggesting that the governor is interested in passing the office to a crony, while state residents are interested in having an election."
Whatever his agenda, it surely seems to be secretive AND improper...
Yet im being beat up for raising similar questions of his motivations?

Some of you seem to have no REAL idea about what citizens rights do and do not entail....at least SOMEbody in a position to not only question, but hold some feet to the fire, do.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Lets look here
laywers contend that " he (Mcgreevey) is depriving voters of their constitutional rights, including due process.
OMG! MORE depravation of what? CONSTITUTIONAL rights!!!!.
Im so glad im not the only one that sees this.

How did the lawyere come to this leap of logic? By looking at legal case history!!! OMG again, imagine that, by looking at interpretations of the law!!!

What in the hell does this have to do with his sexuality or his furthering the gay agenda? This hearing is purely a partisan agenda on both sides, the Dems don't want to give up the seat, and the Reps see an opportunity to take it. Period. This thread was started by you on the notion Mcgreevey was secretly pushing a "gay agenda", which he clearly was not, in fact you proved that with your post stating he was AGAINST gay marriage. Now you've gone WAY off your own thread.

Hmm, while no PERSON is on trial, it sure seems that these ISSUES are before the courts now doesnt it. I think they were on the California courts mind as well...should i cut and past it again or can you just scan back on this thread to see these SAME issues of violating citizens being asked there too?
(Close your eyes, thisisnt really happening...LMAO at complete and total denial of reality!!!!)

No, no it doesn't seem these ISSUES are before the courts, these are completely different issues, and again, WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA HAVE TO DO WITH MCGREEVEY THE GAY MOLE? Completely opposite side of the continent.

Laywers cite on their cases defense...."four other states' Supreme Court have said vacancies are triggered when they are announced."
They also "questioned why the attorney general's office is representing both the governor and the state, suggesting that the governor is interested in passing the office to a crony, while state residents are interested in having an election."
Whatever his agenda, it surely seems to be secretive AND improper...
Yet im being beat up for raising similar questions of his motivations?

Not even close to similar questions. I feel like a hypocrite responding to this, but like James said, it's so hard not to, so I guess I'll give you the points (although I've read we don't get points on the pit, I've never really checked) just to challenge your, IMO, outrageous views.





[edit on 8-9-2004 by 27jd]

Gee 27jd, thought you were leaving.

Caz, what does California have to do with this? They are on the other ide of the coast. Why do you bring up things that have nothing to do with this post? Is that the sound of someone scrambling for ignorance? I think so....

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Gee 27jd, thought you were leaving.

Me too, but I can never back down from a challenge, not that Caz's arguments are challenging, just his persistance.