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
"Is that happening in Canada?
"I see this happening now, only the arrogance, bullying, selfishness and demanding is coming from some of the so-called religious folk in our country.
Popular opinion can also be on the right side of an issue...as it is with the issue of gay marriage.
Slavery, genocide, segregation, all wrong sides. A big clue is if the majority opinion harms and oppresses others.
This does.
As are churches who wish to perform polygamous marriages. But it isn't discrimination to preserve the meaning and intent of a social institution that is already available to all the people equally.
Polygamy has sound legal reasons for not being sanctioned by society. No such sound reasons exist on the matter of same sex marriage.
This whole concept of religious belief used for ill purpose, I had something to say about that today:
http://www.refractivethoughts.org/refractive_thoughts/2009/03/catholic-leaders-lampoon-their-faith-by-attacking-reiki.html
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
Hogwash.
Not with legal standing, and if we cannot, then churches should not have the ability to legally sanction hetero couples.
This is the roughly the same tangent of thought that suggests we aren't discriminated against because we can marry someone of the opposite sex, a silly stance.
Most churches make it a point to be open and welcoming to the public.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>There is no evidence to support this whatsoever, it is a retreating position that grasps at straws. <<
And all it would take is showing where anyone successfully forced a church to marry ANY couple they did not wish to marry for any reason.
>>> History repeats and repeats.
To the best of my knowledge, "history" has never sanctioned gay marriage, especially as an alternative to heterosexual marriage.
>>> The rhetoric to keep inter racial couples from marrying ALSO claimed that the "traditional institution" of marriage was open to all people equally.
You've made a lot of claims about what people used to say without any supporting links. But to your point, even our founding fathers, who wrote that "all men are created equal" were obviously not being completely inclusive...and they, too, would have opposed gay marriage.
>>> Then, the Supreme court stepped in. They'll do it again soon.
They already have. But it will be interesting to see if they uphold the people's rights to be governed by their own constitution.
>>> Cheers.
Ta.
Like calling the LDS church using its right to free speech equal to the gay movement intimidating and directed vadalism? That doesn't seem too equal or balanced to me.
Minorities faced with majority oppression have their work cut out for them, else they will be steamrolled into submission or into oblivion.
For too long, we meekly accepted being kicked around in society; now... we metaphorically kick back.
If others try and push on us, they can expect us to push back.
The vast majority of assualts on gays
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
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
<<It's nice that all of these issues and difficulties are conveniently resolved just as the maternity leave runs out.>>
It's already been pointed out to you that the primary reason that a woman has maternity leave is to physically recover from giving birth, as recommended by ACOG. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. As for the other issues that I mentioned, they don't just "conveniently resolve" themselves within two months, but doctor's appointments are definitely much more infrequent after two months postpartum and breastfeeding is typically well established at that point.
<<For the mother to work and leave the baby with a stranger?>>
Obviously I meant that maternity leave is in the best interest of the mother and the baby.
>>But others have told me that having the husband at home is unnecessary and that the woman was capable of taking care of herself AND the baby without any assistance. From what you're describing, that doesn't appear to be the case.>>
Can you please point out to me where women here, other than myself, have told you that? I was the one who said that
>>Nope.
Pages