House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, suddenly an expert on the Constitution, said on Wednesday that she and Barack Obama are �honoring the Constitution� in their attacks on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Pelosi pontificated:
And given a choice I think we would all say we�re honoring, as the president does, the Constitution. When you pass a bill in the House, as we did with the health care bill, we made it iron clad constitutionally. You have a responsibility to honor the Constitution. In fact, we take an oath to do just that, and that is the oath that President Obama is upholding.
i can't comprehend pelosi and that crowd she has chosen to hang with.
anyways, i suspect the human condition is going to subdivide into two major parts.
those men & women who choose to marry and co-create, and the others who choose to marry but will be unable to co-create.
the problem will solve itself in the long-run.
polygamy will continue to hang in the shadows, but that's the way it's always been.
she is almost as stupid as her constituents.....
Her constituents are burnt completely out, they are house plants.
Pelosi is a fool!
Correction, Pelosi is a GODLESS fool!
That dumb bitch is dumber than a houseplant.
When did she care about honoring the Constitution?
Well, so much for excommunication.
All posts above are spot on...I can't add anything other than she and the squatter in the office of POTUS are wastes of good oxygen.
Too bad they don't feel the same way about the 2A!
DOMA appears to have been thrown up by the religous nuts/churches
to protect their turf/relevance.
DOMA appears to have been thrown up by the religous nuts/churches
to protect their turf/relevance.
Isn't there a gallon of Clorox you can go drink ?
Speaking of throwing up............ I find it interesting that so many politician's positions (including President [bleep]) are "evolving" in favor of queer marriage.
Smacks of political expedience ..... but i could be mistaken?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, suddenly an expert on the Constitution, said on Wednesday that she and Barack Obama are �honoring the Constitution� in their attacks on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Pelosi pontificated:
And given a choice I think we would all say we�re honoring, as the president does, the Constitution. When you pass a bill in the House, as we did with the health care bill, we made it iron clad constitutionally. You have a responsibility to honor the Constitution. In fact, we take an oath to do just that, and that is the oath that President Obama is upholding.
I don't think that our forefathers that wrote the constitution would see it that way. I think they would see Pelousy as an azzhole!
Another POS tool!
DOMA appears to have been thrown up by the religous nuts/churches
to protect their turf/relevance.
Isn't there a gallon of Clorox you can go drink ?
lauren is a libtard democrap who likes to cherry pick the Constitution...he doesn't get it. He doesn't believe you should own an AR but his Remington auto loading 30-06 is ok...
Pelosi: Same Sex Marriage �Honors Constitution�
Your pollies are a strange lot...."honour" must be the new way of saying "shaft".
I'm sure the Creator is feeling "honored".....and Jefferson is thinking "Why did't I put that in there"?
I don't think that our forefathers that wrote the constitution would see it that way. I think they would see Pelousy as an azzhole!
Another POS tool!
The forefathers would have, at the very least, ostracized her from the rest of society, & very likely, tarred & feathered her along with The Muslim.
These progressive libs today, have no understanding or comprehensions at all of the founding fathers intent or logic.
Piglosi's constituents must be dumber than her as they just continue to elect her; she in turn, gets to continue to prattle on & live off the taxpayers.
What a sorry situation, but just one of many in Congress today.
MM
No, its easier for them to denounce the Creator, label the Founders bigots, yet still proclaim the principles sound while they whore them up.
We are dealing with evil and lunatics.
Nancy Pelosi pontificates diarrhea out of her mouth, She has absolutly no idea what the constitution is or why it was written.......Just like our resident diarrhea outta his mouth pontificater Lauren.
Marriage is worthless, borders are worthless, the first and second A's are worthless, birth certificates are worthless, profits are worthless, hunting and fishing are worthless, budgets are worthless, Boy Scouts are worthless, the Bible is worthless, babies are worthless = life is worthless. :crazy Pelosi is really worthless.
Where are the libs who defend her stupidity. She puts voice to the actions her commie pals support.
we lost the battle when we let the liberals and [bleep] even use the term 'marriage' in this context.
In the real world, 'marriage' has nothing to do with folks just living together, and certainly nothing to do with [bleep]. No, not 'same sex couples', and not 'Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender'. The correct terms are '[bleep]', 'homosexual', and 'gender confused'.
we lost the battle when we let the liberals and [bleep] even use the term 'marriage' in this context.
In the real world, 'marriage' has nothing to do with folks just living together, and certainly nothing to do with [bleep]. No, not 'same sex couples', and not 'Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender'. The correct terms are '[bleep]', 'homosexual' 'dyke' , and 'gender confused'.
Fixed it for you.
That grotesque blabber mouth knows just about as much about honor as she does about the constitution.
And yet these people are ELECTED officials.
If you want to test your patience with the most incoherent demented blather, treat yourself to any recent video of her answering a question.
The Constitution has nothing to do with marriage. I'd guess that the founding fathers would be totally perplexed at any association between a document intended to chart the political makeup of the country and the implementation of a religious ceremony.
,..but there's *huge* issues that need to be addressed in America. It's time the people stopped allowing themselves to be focused on "non" issues.
If homosexuals want to agree to a contract which considers them married, it's no skin off my back, but the government has no part to play in it other than possibly enforcing a legally binding, documented and signed contract between the two parties in the contract.
The same goes for heterosexual marriage.
A marriage is an agreement between two people.
If they should so choose, it's a documented, legally binding agreement between two people.
It's their business,...not mine, and definitely not the governments.
I can't understand a mentality that wants the government to dictate the conditions of an agreement between two adult individuals.
Those [bleep] in D.C. are the *last* people you want involved in your personal business.
Those [bleep] in D.C. are the *last* people you want involved in your personal business. [/quote]
This.
When the socialists in government win on this issue, this is the next one they will return to.
Multiple parents........
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GMAHea...multiple-legal-parents/story?id=16705628This administration and its followers are making significant inroads into what was once thought to be societal norms. It is necessary to break them down because it is a precursor to total socialist domination. The dissolution of the family unit is paramount. Aka: transformational change.
Sound familiar?
�With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the consequences which today is the most essential social-moral as well as economic factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden�s honor and a woman�s shame?
- Frederick Engels
Hilarious.
The implication that marriage being controlled by law, whether straight or gay, is constitutional and good...
Well, that's wrong.
Sound familiar?
�With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the consequences which today is the most essential social-moral as well as economic factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden�s honor and a woman�s shame?
- Frederick Engels
Klink - you've got it 100% correct! That last sentence has Planned Parenthood nailed!
My little dog just chit a Turd that is smarter than Nancy Pelosi
And her very state voted against gay marriage. In what way does she come close representing California's voters?
Eyeball,
remember that we established in a previous thread that excommunication was only punishment if being denied the Eucharist meant something to the person being denied it.
tom
The Constitution has nothing to do with marriage. I'd guess that the founding fathers would be totally perplexed at any association between a document intended to chart the political makeup of the country and the implementation of a religious ceremony.
,..but there's *huge* issues that need to be addressed in America. It's time the people stopped allowing themselves to be focused on "non" issues.
If homosexuals want to agree to a contract which considers them married, it's no skin off my back, but the government has no part to play in it other than possibly enforcing a legally binding, documented and signed contract between the two parties in the contract.
The same goes for heterosexual marriage.
A marriage is an agreement between two people.
If they should so choose, it's a documented, legally binding agreement between two people.
It's their business,...not mine, and definitely not the governments.
I can't understand a mentality that wants the government to dictate the conditions of an agreement between two adult individuals.
Those [bleep] in D.C. are the *last* people you want involved in your personal business.
Well said Bristoe.
Stupid beotch is crazy as a chit house rat!
She has the same crazy eyes as the last 3
mass shooters.
My little dog just chit a Turd that is smarter than Nancy Pelosi
![[Linked Image]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TYvlC8IxUPM/SyzRIZXn51I/AAAAAAAADyE/pNRXsG__tvc/s400/nancy-pelosi.jpg)
What I'd like to know is; Why couldn't we let gays enter into a binding union like marriage, but instead call it something like a "civil union" or anything but marriage. Because then they could have the same benefits of marriage when it comes to taxes, health care plans, survivor benefits, etc. So their union could be the same as a marriage but a marriage is a union between a man and a woman; always has been and always should be. Then gays could achieve equality in their union the same as my wife and I have in ours.
Because it's not about gays having equal rights (they do already) it's about tearing down and destroying what is traditional.
Hey Pelosi, THIS honors the Constitution:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
Another lib Senator with an extra [bleep] chromosome, she is.
Oh, andHappy Easter, everyone!
