Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:36:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1537 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
I’m curious-- how would you respond to an act of congress that went
something like this: “The courts are not to rule on matters that have to do
with the definition of marriage.”
|
Clearly, that’s an unconstitutional over-reaching by the Congress.
|
Clearly. Article 3, section 2:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under
this Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc.”
To abridge this function of the judiciary would indeed require an amendment.
| |
| |
We disagree. Every person has the right to marry anyone of the opposite
sex.
|
|
| |
| |
How more equal can you get?
|
|
How more equal? By making the pursuit of happiness available as a viable option
for people who don’t share our particular aesthetic or genetic happenstance.
Doesn’t that seem more equal that relegating a group of people who, through no
fault of their own, are a little different (in a fairly trivial way) than us to
second-class citizenship?
| |
| |
Or are you suggesting that the States
discriminate based on sex, religion, or sexual preference?
|
|
I think I must have missed something. Dave is suggesting the opposite.
| |
| |
| |
How so? Explain to me in very precise terms how homosexual marriage
threatens the future of America. If you’d claim that it will change the
fundamental structure of our culture, then you’ve opened up the argument to
include women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery, both of which
changed the fundamental structure of our culture.
|
|
|
John, I think you missed addressing Dave’s request for a “very precise”
explanation of the threat.
| |
| |
“A certain subset of the population”? Which subset would that be? Just
remember that anytime you define something, you have by definition
discriminated something from something else and set it apart.
|
|
Ah, but to discriminate between is different than to discriminate against.
| |
If the removal of prohibitions against freedom is indeed discriminatory, then
call me discriminatory. I will always favor greater access to rights rather
than greater restriction of rights.
|
Except the set of rights promised by the second amendment, right? :-)
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
