|
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 |
|
Um, Sorry. The proposed amendment does violate | by talon0720 | 2004-07-14 09:11:52 |
|
That someone of DesertRat66's intelligence | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 09:19:47 |
|
I can see his point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:31:01 |
|
It does impose a religious act: marginalizing and | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:33:39 |
|
How is that religious? | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:47:52 |
|
No, but you have to be religious... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:55:07 |
|
What about | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:04:19 |
|
That was why I used "valid", as well. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:18:34 |
|
I'm not familiar with arguments for | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:33:23 |
| Wrong quote placement. |
by Ravenlock |
2004-07-14 11:37:51 |
"Same-sex marriages of a sort", sanctioned by the Church (yes, I should have capitalized it in that case). Historically, the Catholics used to sanction and even have a ceremony for same-sex unions. I don't remember whether they were ever called "marriages" and I don't have the links on-hand, unfortunately.
As for Amendment 22, you may be right, and I might not object to you challenging it as such. But that isn't what we're talking about right now. ;) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Amendment 22 | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:51:34 |
|
Well, I can't shoot you down, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:57:50 |
|
As Ravenlock indicated... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:19:25 |
