The right's dangerous legal argument
Find a Conversation
The right's dangerous legal argument
| Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:46pm |
Appearing for the supporters of Prop 8, Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, said the people hold the right to modify the state constitution by adding or subtracting protections for civil rights.
Court appears ready to uphold Prop. 8
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.

Pages
Our form of government is designed to protect us from that very sort of mob mentality, and really... that is a perfect description of the opposition. Mob mentality.
Hateful, forceful, viscious, juvenile
Those judges decided to ignore the commonly understood
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Haggle? Religon already is legally separated from marriage in that no marriage in the United States needs have a single bit of religion in it. Religion is an optional add on.
And the state recognizes the legality of a religious ceremony.
>>> Certainly most people choose they add on, but even they realize they are making a choice, and I've not seen any push to make the religions rules concerning marriage of any religion apply across the board to other marriages.....except the rule some religions have about gender and that one folks feel free to use as a bludgeon to remove the rights of others.
Poor cat...it so much wants to be called a "fish"...but it's still a cat.
"There is no request for 'extraordinary rights', only a request for equality,"
If it was not the gay community that asked to be legally classified as a protected class then who was it?
Hateful, forceful, viscious, juvenile
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>> Many states already have bans against gay marriage, just as they had bans against interracial marriage.
Many states have laws defending the sanctity of marriage.
>>> Fearmongering led to using state constitutions for oppression.
The people felt that the liberal courts were misusing their authority and so decided to allow the people to choose to secure their social traditions or not. They did.
>>> But the Supreme court will end up deciding this, just as they have previously, and they'll decide NOT to support oppression.
It's likely that they will support the people's right to determine their own constitution.
>>> Dream onl The right couldn't pass this when it controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency; no chance now. None, zero, nada, zilch, nil.
If California, a VERY liberal, VERY pro-gay state, is any indication...
As stated previously,
>>> Would you accept a vote that banned heterosexual marriage?
Sure...Bring it on.
>>No, I acknowledge that once equality is established, all couples will have access to marriage.
But you did.
Pages