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
As I've said, voters may vote their beliefs, but government cannot act on that belief and use it in any legal way, shape, or form.
Sure they can as there's no way for government to know the mind of a person voting...they can't determine if
Marriage for same sex couples already exist in this country, and many others.
It's simply a matter of time before it's nation wide here.
You keep saying it will happen based on.....?
MA, CT and NJ.
New your recognizes marriages from other states.
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The church by definition is supposed to be seperate from government.
>>> Actually, the church - the religious organisation - itself is a social construct, so it follows everything about it is as well.
You're mistaken there as well.
<< And yet that folly was realized last November in California...so maybe it isn't quite the folly you imagine it to be.
>>> Barely. You keep forgetting 47 + percent of the vote went the other way.
And you keep forgetting that California is one of the most liberal, pro-gay states in the union with a large ACTIVE gay community. If it didn't happen here, it seems unlikely that it will happen elsewhere.
<< Actually, I don't think that many conservatives are unable to fathom homosexuality.
>>> Never met one who opposed lgbt rights that could.
Your perception is not surprising.
Interacial marriage was called "extraordinary rights" to.
It was wrong then, it's still wrong.
Soon, the USSC will determine that equality is the only option.
You're kidding, right?
>>> They're not integral. Would you care to show where religion is a legally required component of marriage in this country? It isn't.
Legally required? The State affords civil ceremonies out of consideration for the freedom of religion...but the state also recognizes the legality of the religious ceremony. And in both cases, the "marrying" couple must be a man and a woman.
Pages