Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
What courage? Newsom hasn’t even been arrested for disobeying the law!
|
Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the
consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything
about it doesn’t change that.
I
| |
think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and
expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law
looking the other way.
|
Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester Model 1897 12 gauge
Boomstick. You’ll only get my Lego when you pry it from my cold dead fingers
(with a brick-separator). :-)
Not that California wouldn’t toss you in jail for attempted theft, to add insult
to injury. :-O
| |
| |
Dave! summed this up better than I - conservatives love to play the race
card by claiming the other side is (a pre-retaliatory strike, so to speak).
|
Both sides are guilty, to be sure. That’s why we hate politicians, remember?
:-)
|
Yes, but I believe the lowest pit of hell isn’t reserved for all politicians,
just those from Texas (though Nixon has done his darnedest to crash the party).
| |
| |
So, you are saying there is no civil right to marriage at all? It is
entirely preventable by the government?
|
The issue is whether the government can recognize a marriage that is defined
as a union between 1 man and 1 woman and have that not violate equal
protection. I think it can.
|
And if it can, might it not decide tomorrow that marriage can’t include people
of two different races? I’d rather not have the government telling me what I
can and cannot do.
| |
| |
| |
I remember you saying so. And I applaud your consistency. Trouble is, you
are so in the minority that the overwhelming will of the people cannot be
ignored.
|
Actually, yes it can.
|
Tyranny of the minority? :-)
|
Nope - the majority already agreed that it can get out of hand and accepted that
limitation. Quite a wise decision that learned from history so as to not repeat
its same mistakes.
| |
Well, what should happen is for someone who feels that their rights have
been violated under DOMA to take their case to court. That is where the
constitutionality of the law should be decided-- not by some yahoo
governmental employee issuing illegal and bogus marriage licenses.
|
They are taking a shortcut. Either their action stands, saving the taxpayers
the court costs (because the goverment figures its laws won’t stand up and the
court action is a waste of time and money) or it takes the case to court which
is the net same effect. Further, issuing marriage licenses doesn’t mean that
they have any legal weight, so in effect why seek confrontation when you have an
effective pocket veto? The game-playing by both sides has hardly begun!
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) lol, But -->Bruce<-- I would have expected a little snickersnee from you! Nonetheless, Kewl-- does it still fire, and more importantly: do your Liberal buddies know you own a gun;-) (...) lol I would have said Massachusetts, long before (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) What courage? Newsom hasn't even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the other way. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
