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 DesertRat662004-07-14 08:21:51
        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
                How is that religious? by BloodyViking2004-07-14 10:47:52
                  No, but you have to be religious... by Ravenlock 2004-07-14 10:55:07
to justify it by saying "because God said so."

Which is the only "valid" justification for the proposed amendment.

Justifying a law ONLY with religious text = unconstitutional, since the first amendment's protection of free exercise is supposed to ensure that citizens may practice whatever religion they choose, or none at all.
[ Reply ]
                    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

 

[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.)