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
>>> Perhaps you need to decide what your argument actually is?
Ok...I'll try to focus. <<< concentrating>>>
>>> If it "became necessary to establish" a constitutional definition of marriage because the constitution never contained a definition of marriage as your claimed, then the claim that "same sex marriage does not conform to the constitutional definition of marriage" is ludicrous.
Ok...got it...focusing really helped. The trouble here is that you aren't able to grasp the concept of time as it relates to the statements you mashed together, but I think I can help you. The former relates to a judges ruling that opened the door for a corruption of the traditional concept of marriage...AFTER which a vote was held to constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to which same sex marriage does not conform.
Ok...got it...focusing really helped. The trouble here is that you aren't able to grasp the concept of time as it relates to the statements you mashed together, but I think I can help you. The former relates to a judges ruling that opened the door for a corruption of the traditional concept of marriage...AFTER which a vote was held to constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to which same sex marriage does not conform.
I think I'm OK with time, just not time travel, which seems to be your area of expertise....
"I am a little confused...why would you care what the name was?"
Because 'seperate but equal' is not equal.
"I guess it depends on your point of view."
"Not a single one discussed what you stated above."
"Do you have a link to this statement?"
The previous post.
Link?
Thank you for the information :)
I'm not sure why you attribute actions of some (ex. the 2 straight young men we discussed previously) to the entire "gay movement".
Oh, way over the line and not at all what I was doing.
(Now you've gone and hurt my feelings ;)
>>> I think I'm OK with time, just not time travel, which seems to be your area of expertise....
Well, I wouldn't say "expertise"...but thanks...
>>> me: >>According to the actual text of the proposition, it most certainly and most specifically was eliminating the right of same sex couples to marry --
### Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?<<
>>Of course...because same sex marriage does not conform to the constitutional definition of marriage.<<
>>> Saying that the proposition did not eliminate a right to same sex marriage because same sex marriage did not conform to the constitutional definition of marriage which didn't exist until after the proposition was approved is.....likely the most convoluted bit of logical inconsistency I've yet seen on this board, not to mention I believe its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, thanks for the compliment, but actually, gay marriage has very little to do with "thermodynamics"..except that (from what I've heard) lesbian sex is "very hot." ; ) What prop 8 did was to constitutionally define marriage in accord with the traditional definition of marriage which, naturally, excluded other, more progressive, ideas of marriage which were never an individual "right." I know that all of this is difficult for the "progressive" mind to fathom, but trust me...it's true. LOL!
Pages