@Blickers,
Quote:No, it wasn't. The highest court to rule on the issue of whether Proposition 8 was constitutional-theDistrict Court for Northern California-said it was not. Their opinion counts for a lot more than your opinion. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the District Cort's ruling on technical grounds. A Proposition can be passed by the people, but if the courts rule it unconstitutional, it is no longer valid.
Apparently you ignore that laws are made to protect us, not so to let what is chaos and wrong be accepted.
If people starts to use the nose orifices for eating and drinking, something that is possible to do, and this causes several damage in that part of the body, and treatment to cure it causes as well millions and millions of dollars.
The best "advice" is not the use of the nose for eating, but the ones who do it claim their "right" to do it, that they have the right to use their bodies the way they want.
The number of "nose eating" people increases, and the number of sick people because that way of eating reaches a notorious amount in society. Sick because lack of saliva to kill bacteria, sick because irritation and bleeding of nose orifices, etc.
Many complaint of the increase of health insurance, doctors busy treating nose eating patients, government demanded to find a product for allow nose eating people to have av kind of lubricant with saliva characteristics to be used before eating thru the nose, etc.
The court decided to enforce the making of such a lubricant, and declares that this nose eating people have the right to keep their nose eating method.
_______________________________________
From the example above.
1)- the court is obligated to rule in base of protection of the body, not so in doing harm to the body by people.
2)- before any ruling, the court must check and verify if nature formed the orifices of the nose of humans for the purpose of eating food and drinking liquids.
3)- the court decision shall be always not influenced by compassion and neither the approval of a psychological condition of people with tendencies to damage their bodies in any form.
4)- the court ruling must be in accord with what nature formed in us for the purpose of eating food and drinking liquids, which is the mouth, the orifice with teeth and saliva, which crush and kill food and liquids bacteria.
5)- the court will consider the right of people to eat using the nose orifices but if doing so causes problems in their health and causes other negative consequences, then the ones who do so will pay according to the penalties established by the correspondent jurisdictions.
In other words, the nose eating people are on their own.
______________________________________________
Court is not suppose to protect a behavior which clearly is against nature.
Do you understand?
Read again, laws are made to protect us, not so to allow people to do harm to themselves and to society in general
When the court approves a behavior against nature, this court decision itself is unconstitutional.
And you can't go against this truth, that our Constitution was created to protect us as individuals, -our physical bodies and intellectually- as a society and as a nation.
Any court decision that protects the wrong use of the anus and rectum for introduce a male organ or an object, is simply against nature, because the rectum and anus are made by nature to defecate, and the muscles in this zone are made for the exit of excrement and a way to impede and make hard the entrance of foreign objects.
If the court ruled consenting people for the wrong use of their bodies, that court was formed by corrupt judges.
In the case of Proposition 8 vote in California, we have
1)- a dictator who trashed Democracy by voiding the popular vote saying "NO" to gay marriage, and
2)- two years later a group of corrupt judges who allowed sexually depraved people to obtain an official marriage license.
