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
Yes, that's called state regulation.
Actually, upholding the terms under which they gained tax exempt status. They own property that might otherwise be taxable, the state agrees to the break if they meet certain terms.
They broke the terms, they pay. Simple.
If a mininster opens their mouth in church and says vote for Person B, well, bye bye tax exemption.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
They are a religious entity and should be exempt and allowed to discriminate within the bounds of their religion.
"I think she means afford them legally recognized marriage ceremonies"
LOL.
If NOW claimed to be renting out a piece of property they owned to the public, but refused to rent it to men, then indeed I would think the tax exempt status of that property would be revoked.
~Why? I thought the "gay argument" was all about rights? Now it seems to be about social parity. Hmmm...~
>>> "Seems" being the key word, given that
>>> a) it's about equal access to civic institutions
Civil unions wouldn't provide equal access to civic institutions?
>>> b) one tangent on this thread doesn't = "the gay argument".
Thus far, the "gay argument" has always been harping about "rights"...not "you have to accept my behavior and make it equitable with your sacred and long-standing traditions."
"If NOW claimed to be renting out a piece of property they owned to the public, but refused to rent it to men, then indeed I would think the tax exempt status of that property would be revoked.
~That's no an argument that carries much weight with those who oppose redefining marriage.~
Nope, but in my experience it goes a long way with those sitting on the fence.
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have spelled it out more carefully.
Our largest Protestant Christian denomination
~Civil unions wouldn't provide equal access to civic institutions?~
Oh, I see where you are going with this... the old claim that they already have a right to enter the civic institution of marriage, ie.
Pages