|
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 |
|
Irrelevant. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:08:16 |
|
But that's precisely what they are arguing. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:29:15 |
|
Clearly, they are wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:55:18 |
|
If you define marriage solely according to the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:06:56 |
|
But the dispute and the amendment | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:51:16 |
|
Well, now I gotta drag it out again. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:54:57 |
| Wouldn't happen. |
by BloodyViking |
2004-07-14 13:14:03 |
The medical justification would be trotted out as well.
As I asked elsewhere, are the reasons really religious, or is that just a cover for the bigotry which is IMO the real reason for the attemted amendment?
And again, the (attempt at) justification being religious doesn't make the amendment religious. It does not have any effect on religious practice.
To me, the 1st Amendment issue is a red herring. The fact that there is no secular justification for it, and that it is pure bigotry makes it clear that it is a big steaming pile of s4, so why even worry whether it is Constitutional? (And if the put it into the Constitution, it would be by definition.) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
By your logic... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 16:01:15 |
