|
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 |
|
O.K. I'll ask another question | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 09:49:32 |
| No, because we have a SECULAR |
by Ravenlock |
2004-07-14 10:00:51 |
law, with secular reasoning and justification, that prohibits it. No need to apologize for the extremity - the same reasoning would prevent the government protecting a religion that claimed it was within their doctrine to not pay taxes. Our secular laws take precedence over allowances for religious practice, as they have always done (with the notable and strange exception of alcohol at communion).
The proposed amendment, however, would IMPOSE a religious belief on those who are NOT members of the religion(s) that adhere to it, WITHOUT any secular reasoning for doing so.
That's unconstitutional. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
