|
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 |
| Amendment 22 |
by Matthewdba |
2004-07-14 11:51:34 |
I brought that up to show that one need not have a "valid" or "good" secular justification for an amendment, just a justification.* One could argue by that reasoning that any secular justification, including the one I offered, could be used as a basis for an amendment, hence that (as there was a secular justification, though a thoroughly bad one) the amendment didn't violate the First Amendment.
Please shoot me down on this one. I don't want to have to conclude myy reasoning is valid here! :-)
*$Member_of_Monty_Python_Troupe: I came here for a good argument!
John Cleese: No you didn't. You came here for an argument.
--Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" skit |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
