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
"Um, no, that's the "when pigs can fly" solution."
I thought you were big on separation of church v. state.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Who is it that put that requirement on them?
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>> On one condition: the state only recognises civil unions for everyone. Marriage becomes a ceremonial commitment for each church to decide who they will allow to do so, with no legal standing.
Why? I thought the "gay argument" was all about rights? Now it seems to be about social parity. Hmmm...
We never get tired
>>> Um, no, that's the "when pigs can fly" solution.
I see...so the gays argument about "rights" is a lie...which is no big surprise.
>>> I'm betting on your "the times they are a-changin" instead.
Some folks probably felt that way last May...and then again in November. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Yup, it is. We equalise, everyone has the same thing, churches can marry same sex couples if they wish.
By the way, those who argue same sex marriage infringes upon the right of a church to not marry same sex couples also forget their position infringes upon those churches that do wish to marry same sex couples.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Really?
>>but isn't every couple (like in NL)
>>There was no vote to remove anyone's rights...there was a vote to constitutionally clarify the definition of marriage to preserve it's traditional meaning.<<
"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?"
The proposition itself
Pages