|
GOP vows to ban same-sex marriage | by FireballMatt | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Santorum is such a pr*ck! | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 06:48:15 |
|
What pisses me off the most about these @$$holes | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 07:30:16 |
|
Doesn't parse for me | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 08:21:51 |
|
Yes it DOES violate the First Amendment in | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 08:33:50 |
| Once again |
by DesertRat66 |
2004-07-14 09:21:28 |
How is the proposed ammendment establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof? Their morality does have a religious basis and I would argue that all morality, if you dig deep enough, can be proven to be derived from a religious doctrine or at least similar enough that trying to claim that it wasn't would be pointless. I would also argue that if your church will not marry you, you are free to go join a church that will.
Now I do feel the proposed ammendment is unconstitutional on other grounds. I also believe that it's supporters are aware of this as well; which is why it is being proposed as an ammendment and not a law. I don't think it would be possible for the courts to declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I told you why. | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
O.K. I'll ask another question | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 09:49:32 |
|
No, because THAT would be establishing a | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 09:56:29 |
|
ummm | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:01:22 |
|
Re: the victim | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:14:30 |
|
And that is why | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:40:30 |
|
The difference being... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 11:27:05 |
|
No, because we have a SECULAR | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:00:51 |
|
What secular reasoning? | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:09:36 |
|
We've had this debate before. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:15:04 |
|
I probably wasn't | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Um, the First Commandment is: "Thou shalt have | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:29:46 |
|
LOL. Nicely done. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:32:53 |
|
If he hadn't posted it at least twice, I was going | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:35:44 |
|
My mistake | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:37:03 |
|
<Dorothy>Here's your oil can!</Dorothy> (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:39:45 |
|
Man, when the tin man shows up, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:40:52 |
|
Since you lost your stuffing, that makes you the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:41:45 |
|
I dunno... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:44:01 |
|
But the point of the movie was that they | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:46:24 |
|
...Hunh. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:50:03 |
|
Lemme clarify. Hopefully this'll work. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:31:32 |
|
s/it's is/it's. Can't type to save my life today. (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:33:44 |
|
*gives Ravenlock's stuffing back* | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:36:47 |
|
Whew! We'll try it with that. Thanks! ;-) (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:38:21 |
|
Hitting the brakes and hitting them hard | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
NOLAwitch please read ^^^ (n/t) | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:27:06 |
|
Yes, it was my assumption... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:33:52 |
|
By the way, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:39:55 |
|
s/what where/was where. *Sigh* :-p (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:40:16 |
|
What tipped me off | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:46:34 |
|
Group hug. ;-) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:47:43 |
|
In that case | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:40:14 |
|
I agree, and I wonder too. ;-) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:40:56 |
|
My take... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 11:40:00 |
|
I assumed that "legal incidents thereof" | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:43:34 |
|
Support for that, though I don't... | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
i guess that means then | by gibuu | 2004-07-14 13:34:22 |
|
Those words "legal incidents" DO enable the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:43:52 |
|
Now that I have read the ammendment | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:51:50 |
|
Elections should be easy enough: dump the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:57:46 |
|
Problem is | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 12:02:09 |
|
I second the motion. All in favor say "Aye". (n/t | by talon0720 | 2004-07-14 14:02:28 |
|
RE: Concerning another question | by Canoso | 2004-07-14 10:04:34 |
|
...Women's lib "wasn't a big issue", | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:06:52 |
|
RE: | by Canoso | 2004-07-14 10:11:04 |
|
*LART* Matthew Shepard. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:13:19 |
|
RE: Matther Shepard | by Canoso | 2004-07-14 10:16:11 |
|
Their persecution is worse than you seem to think. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:18:36 |
|
RE: | by Canoso | 2004-07-14 10:32:18 |
|
On left or right | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:47:37 |
|
RE: Left/right | by canoso | 2004-07-14 11:06:34 |
|
You're probably not that active because... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:07:54 |
|
RE: active | by Canoso | 2004-07-15 09:27:09 |
|
Yeah, like one of my coworkers was going on and on | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:53:00 |
|
RE: Coworkers | by canoso | 2004-07-14 11:03:17 |
|
What's worse than the Shepard case? | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:05:12 |
|
Doh. Um, yeah. (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:08:50 |
|
I'm doing well on the ideas today. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:10:59 |
|
*hugs the stuffing out of Ravenlock* | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:11:20 |
|
Thanks. Can I have the stuffing back? | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:19:36 |
|
Wrong. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 11:42:39 |
|
Dude, several UFies of mature intelligence have | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 09:41:35 |
|
Maybe so | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 09:57:59 |
|
Replied to that as well. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:01:46 |
|
Its not denial of the 1st Amendment that makes | by crash_ | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
All good points. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 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 Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:22:13 |
|
Wow. Well done. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:12:56 |
|
Very well stated (n/t) | by plblark | 2004-07-14 11:56:26 |
|
Well, how would you and nin_man feel... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:10:55 |
|
What the heck would we be doing in Utah? | by nin_man | 2004-07-14 12:17:47 |
|
You have a good point | by crash_ | 2004-07-14 12:22:47 |
|
Those states are required by federal law | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:29:27 |
|
I guess problem solved then | by crash_ | 2004-07-14 12:51:44 |
|
I think that's how it goes... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 13:03:56 |
|
related to my other post... | by gibuu | 2004-07-14 13:44:42 |
|
Article IV | by NOLAWitch | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
thanks | by gibuu | 2004-07-14 14:09:43 |
|
No | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 16:17:44 |
|
Now that is a Supreme Court case | by crash_ | 2004-07-14 19:55:08 |
