|
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 |
|
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 |
| Lemme clarify. Hopefully this'll work. |
by Ravenlock |
2004-07-14 10:31:32 |
It's is fine for a law to coincide with a religious belief that states the same thing. You couldn't say, for example, that outlawing homosexual marriage is against the first amendment because religion says homosexual marriage is bad.
However, justifying a law with a religious text very clearly violates the first amendment because it is supposed to protect FREE EXERCISE, which includes NOT FOLLOWING a religion. God may have said so, and that's fine, but "BECAUSE God said so" is an unconstitutional justification. If you disagree with that statement, please re-examine your assessment of what "free exercise" means.
There is no justification for the proposed amendment, outside of "because God said so." Ergo, it violates the first amendment. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
