|
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 |
| I told you why. |
by Ravenlock |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
Right here.
There is ONLY religious justification for the proposed amendment. The First Amendment ensures freedom to practice NO religion as well as to practice any religion you choose.
This one holds up the ideals of particular religion(s) with no secular arguments to back it up. It would be, again, like an amendment requiring our women to wear head scarves. Religion is being used to deny people civil, secular rights. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
