The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
GOP vows to ban same-sex marriage by FireballMatt2006-11-19 12:55:59
  Santorum is such a pr*ck! by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 06:48:15
    What pisses me off the most about these @$$holes by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 07:30:16
      Doesn't parse for me by DesertRat66 2004-07-14 08:21:51
I agree that their morality does come from their religion, but the proposed ammendment does not (IMO) violate the First. They are not making a law establishing religion, nor are they making a law prohibiting free exercise of religion. They are proposing an ammendment saying that you will not be legally recognized as a married couple unless you are of opposite sexes. Now, if they were banning churches from performing gay marriages you would be correct. But what they are saying is "even if your religion considers you married your Government will not."

The ammendment is repugnant yes, but in violation of even the spirit of the First Ammendment I don't think so.
[ Reply ]
        The problem is that the only... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 08:26:32
        Yes it DOES violate the First Amendment in by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 08:33:50
          Once again by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:21:28
            I told you why. by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
              O.K. I'll ask another question by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:49:32
                No, because THAT would be establishing a by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:56:29
                  ummm by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:01:22
                    Re: the victim by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:14:30
                      And that is why by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:40:30
                    The difference being... by Naruki2004-07-14 11:27:05
                No, because we have a SECULAR by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:00:51
                  What secular reasoning? by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:09:36
                    We've had this debate before. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:15:04
                      I probably wasn't by DesertRat662006-11-19 12:55:59
                        Um, the First Commandment is: "Thou shalt have by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:29:46
                          LOL. Nicely done. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:32:53
                            If he hadn't posted it at least twice, I was going by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:35:44
                          My mistake by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:37:03
                            <Dorothy>Here's your oil can!</Dorothy> (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:39:45
                              Man, when the tin man shows up, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:40:52
                                Since you lost your stuffing, that makes you the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:41:45
                                I dunno... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:44:01
                                But the point of the movie was that they by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:46:24
                                ...Hunh. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:50:03
                        Lemme clarify. Hopefully this'll work. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:31:32
                          s/it's is/it's. Can't type to save my life today. (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:33:44
                            *gives Ravenlock's stuffing back* by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:36:47
                              Whew! We'll try it with that. Thanks! ;-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:38:21
                          Hitting the brakes and hitting them hard by DesertRat662006-11-19 12:55:59
                            NOLAwitch please read ^^^ (n/t) by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:27:06
                            Yes, it was my assumption... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:33:52
                              By the way, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:39:55
                                s/what where/was where. *Sigh* :-p (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:40:16
                                What tipped me off by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:46:34
                                Group hug. ;-) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:47:43
                              In that case by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:40:14
                                I agree, and I wonder too. ;-) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:40:56
                            My take... by Naruki2004-07-14 11:40:00
                              I assumed that "legal incidents thereof" by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:43:34
                                Support for that, though I don't... by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
                              i guess that means then by gibuu2004-07-14 13:34:22
                            Those words "legal incidents" DO enable the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:43:52
                              Now that I have read the ammendment by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:51:50
                                Elections should be easy enough: dump the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:57:46
                                Problem is by DesertRat662004-07-14 12:02:09
                                I second the motion. All in favor say "Aye". (n/t by talon07202004-07-14 14:02:28
                RE: Concerning another question by Canoso2004-07-14 10:04:34
                  ...Women's lib "wasn't a big issue", by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:06:52
                    RE: by Canoso2004-07-14 10:11:04
                      *LART* Matthew Shepard. by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:13:19
                        RE: Matther Shepard by Canoso2004-07-14 10:16:11
                      Their persecution is worse than you seem to think. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:18:36
                        RE: by Canoso2004-07-14 10:32:18
                          On left or right by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:47:37
                            RE: Left/right by canoso2004-07-14 11:06:34
                              You're probably not that active because... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:07:54
                                RE: active by Canoso2004-07-15 09:27:09
                          Yeah, like one of my coworkers was going on and on by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:53:00
                            RE: Coworkers by canoso2004-07-14 11:03:17
                        What's worse than the Shepard case? by Naruki2004-07-14 12:05:12
                          Doh. Um, yeah. (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:08:50
                            I'm doing well on the ideas today. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:10:59
                    *hugs the stuffing out of Ravenlock* by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:11:20
                      Thanks. Can I have the stuffing back? by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:19:36
                  Wrong. by Naruki2004-07-14 11:42:39
            Dude, several UFies of mature intelligence have by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:41:35
              Maybe so by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:57:59
                Replied to that as well. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:01:46
            Its not denial of the 1st Amendment that makes by crash_2006-11-19 12:55:59
              All good points. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:58:49
                I didn't say that it doesn't violate by crash_2004-07-14 11:21:45
                  Okay, yay. :-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:22:13
              Wow. Well done. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:12:56
              Very well stated (n/t) by plblark2004-07-14 11:56:26
              Well, how would you and nin_man feel... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:10:55
                What the heck would we be doing in Utah? by nin_man2004-07-14 12:17:47
                You have a good point by crash_2004-07-14 12:22:47
                  Those states are required by federal law by Naruki2004-07-14 12:29:27
                    I guess problem solved then by crash_2004-07-14 12:51:44
                      I think that's how it goes... by Naruki2004-07-14 13:03:56
                        related to my other post... by gibuu2004-07-14 13:44:42
                          Article IV by NOLAWitch2006-11-19 12:55:59
                            thanks by gibuu2004-07-14 14:09:43
                              No by Matthewdba2004-07-14 16:17:44
                            Now that is a Supreme Court case by crash_2004-07-14 19:55:08
        Um, Sorry. The proposed amendment does violate by talon07202004-07-14 09:11:52
          That someone of DesertRat66's intelligence by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:19:47
            I can see his point. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 10:31:01
              It does impose a religious act: marginalizing and by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:33:39
                Ding. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:35:31
                How is that religious? by BloodyViking2004-07-14 10:47:52
                  No, but you have to be religious... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:55:07
                    What about by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:04:19
                      That was why I used "valid", as well. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:18:34
                        I'm not familiar with arguments for by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:33:23
                          Wrong quote placement. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:37:51
                            Amendment 22 by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:51:34
                              Well, I can't shoot you down, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:57:50
                              As Ravenlock indicated... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:19:25
                      For starters, it's a lie. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:13:55
                        On your first paragraph by Matthewdba2004-07-14 12:22:05
                          Invalid arguments are ignored. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:31:02
                    Irrelevant. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:08:16
                      ...Interesting. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:16:59
                        No. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:49:15
                          Fair enough. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:53:40
                            Hey now, by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:01:19
                              Okay by me. :-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:01:58
                      But that's precisely what they are arguing. by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:29:15
                        In fact it has been listed as a sacrament by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:41:30
                        Clearly, they are wrong. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:55:18
                          See my point about circumcision. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:58:31
                          If you define marriage solely according to the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:06:56
                            But the dispute and the amendment by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:51:16
                              Well, now I gotta drag it out again. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:54:57
                                Wouldn't happen. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 13:14:03
                                By your logic... by Naruki2004-07-14 16:01:15
                  They are using their religion to justify their by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:55:50
                    But that is different by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:04:07
                      Then use Slippery Slope argument. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:27:47
                        Is the dogma the basis for the law by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:33:16
                          A bit off all of the above, don't you think? (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:35:39
                            s/off/of (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:35:50
                          What NOLA said. by Naruki2004-07-14 13:03:02
          My take on it by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:13:50

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)