Yes Gummo, you're quite right. As Mr Muehlenberg points out, the gonemvrental arrangements within which what is lawful in the US is worked out is an open door to subversion of democracy and entirely analagous with social change at the barrell of a gun. Doubtless, the founding fathers, who had more than one or two guns themselves to force radical social change, especially on the unwilling indigenes, were in on the scam, knowing full well one day one wouldn't need guns to force the homosexual agenda down the throats of an unwilling public or at any rate, the 52% who voted for Prop 8.It is interesting though that the usual claim by conservatives that tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny (which is one of the reasons for having a constitution and judicial oversight) seems to have fallen out of Mr Muelhlenberg's otherwise rigorous analysis. I mean, you'd have to be gay to agree that having an arbitrary rule that accorded rights on the basis of sexual preference was at odds with the equality provisions of the Constitution, wouldn't you?Those founding fathers they were devotees of the long game weren't they? Forget Gramsci. Jefferson and Paine were the real subversives weren't they? I do wonder what Muehlenberg would say if a referendum sought to overrule the force of oh, I don't know the second amendment and one of those judicially active judges upheld it? http://cgvsuwobe.com
url=http://vbxnpgegg.comvbxnpgegg
/url link=http://ljjkvzt.com
?ljjkvzt
/link
