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
<< Of course...because same sex marriage does not conform to the constitutional definition of marriage.<<
>>> Most certainly it does, which is why the anti-gay marriage folks has to change the constitution.
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. The constitution never contained a definition of "marriage," but when the traditional definition was corrupted by irresponsible judges, it became necessary to establish one.
>>> But I'm glad to see you aren't making the ludicrous argument that a proposition that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry wasn't eliminating any rights.
The proposition clarified an erroneous corruption of the long-held definition and tradition of marriage.
My daughter sent me this youtube video of Portia De Rossi apologizing for getting married on Jimmy Kimmel Live and I thought you might enjoy it as well as Kate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvRXXSEgXs
It really is just silly to not let people get married isn't it?
~Not in my opinion...what do you think?~
>>> I think that various people can be involved in raising children, but that usually it is primarily the parent(s).
Sounds about right...sadly, in today's society, it's usually strangers with little or no interest or investment in the overall well being of the child.
~There's a difference between "providing" and "raising."~
>>> Yes, that's right. However, I'm not the one asking "who's raising the kids" who require childcare services.
And?
~Sure, the next time we have a "what's best for society" intervention, we'll post the date and time.~
lol :)
~An interesting question. Do you have any data on this?~
>>> No, sorry. Do you?
If I did, I certainly would have provided it...but I'll keep my eyes open.
>>> That would be interesting to explore. For example, I am a liberal atheist who firmly believes in staying home to raise my kids. I wonder how I ever managed to come to this decision without religious teachings...and I also wonder how my "values" differ in this regard to religious folk.
I don't know...how did you arrive at that conclusion?
>>> That would be interesting to explore. For example, I am a liberal atheist who firmly believes in staying home to raise my kids. I wonder how I ever managed to come to this decision without religious teachings...and I also wonder how my "values" differ in this regard to religious folk.
I don't know...how did you arrive at that conclusion?
How do religious folks make their decision to stay home and raise their kids?
~I think any confusion is deliberate...~
Oh, if only I got deliberately confused these days but no, I manage it without any effort :)
~If I did, I certainly would have provided it...but I'll keep my eyes open.~
Okay, thanks :)
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
:)
I have something for you, too, since we can't go so long without mentioning our "Messiah" lol ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTz73Tt2m9Q
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> When someone actively funds something that hurts those I love as well as me, yeah... expect that I will not meekly roll over and be kicked into submission.
Maybe the folks who believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman felt the same way.
>>> At certain points, groups who are oppressed begin to counter the oppression. So if that means 'we went after them like dogs', woof.
The liberals sure did...viciously. It's a shame that they couldn't deal with the defeat of their issue with the same kind of civility that those who oppose gay marriage did when the courts ruled against them.
Pages