UserFriendly Strip Comments


	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 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
Hitting the brakes and hitting them hard	by DesertRat66	2006-11-19 12:55:59
I need to ask both you and NOLAwitch if you have read the text of the ammendment. If you haven't here it is: `Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. link "legal incidents therof"?!?! Now I will admit to making an assumption based on the news reports that this ammendment was NOT to prohibit civil unions. (the link is timing out right now I had to remember I could hit googlecache to get it SO maybe I'm NOT firing on all cylinders today) :-/ IF that were the case I would say that the ammendment would not violate the freedom to not follow a religion as all it would do is define a word. However those three words make me wonder: "are they trying to prohibit civil unions as well?" If so then you are absolutely correct IMO that if this were a law and not an ammendment it would violate the First Ammendment. However if it was just defining a word I would say that while I feel it violates other parts of the Constitution it would not violate the First Ammendment. Regardless of intent I view those three words as some serious legalese wiggle room to even get civil unions banned.
[ Reply ]
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

[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.)