Wis. AG won't defend domestic partnership law

Sounds to me like the AG needs to start looking for a new job. Isn't it part of the Attorney General's duties to uphold the state's law, regardless of how that law got enacted and regardless of his personal feelings about it?

It is about time a state showed some class and the courage to stand up for it's own good.

fatboy2 wrote:

It is about time a state showed some class and the courage to stand up for it's own good.

Sure, even ifr it does go against the Iowa Constitution and it's bill of rights! Tyranny of the majority! Not going to fly, oh he who married a RAT! How was the honeymoon? LOL

What does Iowa have to do with anything bright boy? Are you drunk again?

Joe Corrilo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, even ifr it does go against the Iowa Constitution and it's bill of rights! Tyranny of the majority! Not going to fly, oh he who married a RAT! How was the honeymoon? LOL

fatboy2 wrote:

It is about time a state showed some class and the courage to stand up for it's own good.

Yup, who cares if the AG actually does his job or not? Maybe you and the AG should realize the rights of a minority is not up to the vote by a majority.

Immoralality does not a minority make

McMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, who cares if the AG actually does his job or not? Maybe you and the AG should realize the rights of a minority is not up to the vote by a majority.

fatboy2 wrote:

Immoralality does not a minority make
<quoted text>

What?

This AG must be a complete idiot. They banned gay marriage, not domestic partnerships with limited rights... which he apparently supported in 2006 when the ban was made.

They still have their separate but separate. What's this moron's problem?

Which word do you need defined?

Captain Cucumber wrote:

<quoted text>
What?

fatboy2 wrote:

Which word do you need defined?
<quoted text>

You didn't write a coherent sentence and you spelled "immorality" wrong.

Try again.

Actually it is perfectly clear especially because you figured out the word I spelled incorrectly

Captain Cucumber wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't write a coherent sentence and you spelled "immorality" wrong.
Try again.

"Immorality does not a minority make"

That doesn't mean anything. Don't make us guess. Speak proper English.

Actually it is correct. Should I draw you pictures to make it easier for you?

Captain Cucumber wrote:

"Immorality does not a minority make"
That doesn't mean anything. Don't make us guess. Speak proper English.

Is English your first language?

"Immorality does not a minority make"

Say that out loud. It's not right.

I get the gist: "Being immoral doesn't make someone a minority." ... I have to assume you were TRYING to say... though you very much did not.

It used to be immoral for women to wear pants. Keep your idiot's guide book to living in a small, intolerant world to yourself. No one cares.

You must have never read anything other than the comic strips. I am sure if you had attempted anything else you would still be working on it 20 years later. Go play with your cucumber pervert. Try reading a book

Captain Cucumber wrote:

Is English your first language?
"Immorality does not a minority make"
Say that out loud. It's not right.
I get the gist: "Being immoral doesn't make someone a minority." ... I have to assume you were TRYING to say... though you very much did not.
It used to be immoral for women to wear pants. Keep your idiot's guide book to living in a small, intolerant world to yourself. No one cares.

Captain Cucumber wrote:

Is English your first language?
"Immorality does not a minority make"
Say that out loud. It's not right.
I get the gist: "Being immoral doesn't make someone a minority." ... I have to assume you were TRYING to say... though you very much did not.
It used to be immoral for women to wear pants. Keep your idiot's guide book to living in a small, intolerant world to yourself. No one cares.

"Immorality does not a minority make" is not incorrect per se, although the word order is rather overly poetic and archaic. The verb is there, the noun is there, they match in tense and person, and the sentence doesn't end in a preposition.
That said, the content of the sentence is null.

Captain Cucumber wrote:

Is English your first language?
"Immorality does not a minority make"
Say that out loud. It's not right.
I get the gist: "Being immoral doesn't make someone a minority." ... I have to assume you were TRYING to say... though you very much did not.
It used to be immoral for women to wear pants. Keep your idiot's guide book to living in a small, intolerant world to yourself. No one cares.

It follows the same grammatical pattern as "Neither a lender nor a borrower be".
It might be amusing to note that Yoda, the Jedi master from Star Wars, spoke this way.

I understand fully now that you mentioned star wars. Try Sheakspeare next time

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
It follows the same grammatical pattern as "Neither a lender nor a borrower be".
It might be amusing to note that Yoda, the Jedi master from Star Wars, spoke this way.

English is SVO. Subject-Verb-Object.
It wasn't a good sentence.*Word order does matter.* Maybe it's a functional sentence, but it's definitely not a good sentence.

Yoda speaks the way he does because he's literally from another planet. English is not his first language.

And, he wasn't using an archaic idiom (I would still say "be neither a lender nor a borrower").

We're not in a period novel, a comic book or a sci-fi movie. If you speak like that, people are going to know immediately that you're an idiot.

Ok, I guess it is SVO. But it's still an awful, ugly sentence.

Don't write like that. You still look like an idiot, even if it's functional.