quote:Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy.
You didn't look it up, did you? A liberal democracy is a specific form of government. From that bastion of hopefully correct knowledge, Wikipedia:
quote:Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
In representative democracies, the citizenship does not directly vote on all issues.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy."
There's a constitutional mechanism in place to allow voting. The legislature correctly recognized that putting the issue to a popular vote would be putting a minorities rights up for popular vote.
A liberal democracy (E.G. the united states) places constitutional limits on what laws are allowable so as to protect the rights/freedoms of people living within the jurisdiction.
Pure democracy means that 51% of the people can decide that it is an offense punishable by death to be a black person.
Liberal democracy means that you have to change the constitution written to protect rights and freedoms if you want to pass that law.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Liberal democracy means that you have to change the constitution written to protect rights and freedoms if you want to pass that law.
So you think people should be able to change the Constitution to permit "voting on minority rights"? That's not quite what you said before, which is what I was touching on.
-------------
quote:You didn't look it up, did you? A liberal democracy is a specific form of government. From that bastion of hopefully correct knowledge, Wikipedia:
I didn't have to look it up. I know what it means to me, and I know what it means to many people, but I also know that it means different things to different people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's a constitutional mechanism in place to allow voting. The legislature correctly recognized that putting the issue to a popular vote would be putting a minorities rights up for popular vote.
The legislature correctly recognized that crossing their party leadership would have more negative effects for them than following their constituents. Nothing was being attempted that was unconstitutional or inconsistent with a liberal democracy. The ballot initiative was a final effort to force the legislature to do their job (something they've been avoiding for at least five years). In the end it failed because money and politics decreed that it should. But it had very little to do with the nobility of the cause.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: Sounds to me that what you object to is the Mass constitution. At least the part of it that dictates how amending it is to be done.
Personally, I think admending the constitution *should* be next to impossible. Otherwise it means nothing as a standard to which we hold up laws.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't object to the process. I think it should be difficult to amend the constitution, and that the citizenry should have a difficult time overriding legislative decisions (or indecisions in this case) through ballot initiatives. In this particular case I believe the legislators made a poor decision, based more on politics than statesmanship. That the process can be frustrated by selfish legislators doesn't mean that I don't agree with the process in general.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A civil union for gay marriage is perfectly fine, so long as the same civil union is what heterosexual couples get.
Homosexuals demanding that their unions be called "marriages" isn't fair, and isn't something the government should EVER decide. Government has one duty here: To provide equal protections and benefits to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.
Everything over and above that, such as marriages, are out of their hands. Homosexuals will have to lobby churches, not Washington if they want that as well.
Keeping legal benefits from same sex couples isn't fair, they are rights that have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the secular state. Science and society have advanced to the point where same sex couples can have and take care of children in stable family environments, which leads me to believe this debate is based entirely on religion, and as I've stated, enemies of SSM are trying to deny secular rights to same sex couples unfairly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I think admending the constitution *should* be next to impossible. Otherwise it means nothing as a standard to which we hold up laws.
I agree, but I would add "implicitly or explicitly" in front of amending. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: That would make it hard to interpret, wouldn't it? It's a sad fact that the constitution is (deliberately?) vague.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's definitely a balancing act. Suffice it to say that I think we've gone too far in certain directions in that regard.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
But these marriages (I resist the impulse to scarequote out of respect) aren't recognized by the federal government either. SS couples who are married in MA cannot file jointly on federal tax returns (or, at least, could be taken to court for doing so). The federal benefits of marriage are not currently enjoyed or ensured by these couples.
For now. DOMA is patently unconstitutional, and if the federal government refuses to recognize a legal marriage performed in Massachusetts and the case goes to court, it may be just what's needed to overturn that modern-day Dred Scott decision.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections.
I don't see that. There are people who won't ever recognize us as being married, no matter what ceremony or legal status we have. They'll never change. But there are a lot of people who, if the law says we're married, will shrug their shoulders and say, "Fine, you're married". And that last group will grow by leaps and bounds in a single generation once the laws stop discriminating against us.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
I get that you don't think they're the same thing. I think they are.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
What are you basing that on? It's almost certainly not violative of the 14th amendment under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence, despite arguments to the contrary. The application of equal protection to gender issues has always allowed for differences in reproductive biology between the sexes to be the basis for distinctions under law. Due process heavily factors in tradition and the current understanding of the rights at issue as recognized by the states.
That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage.
"Patently unconstitutional" is pretty strong language with respect to almost any issue that hasn't been directly settled by the courts, let alone one as thorny as this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage."
*Nod* That doesn't mean that how the court has interpretted it is compatible with the constitution as written.
If one were to have no knowledge of american politics, read the constitution, and then be asked about the constitutionality of DOMA, I'd be hard pressed to see how one could say that the law is constitutional.
There's a lot of interaction between parts of the constitution, in a lot of different places, that often make for the ability to make constitutionality arguments about different peices of legislation one way or the other, but I really don't see the constitutional argument that allows for the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
What are you basing that on? It's almost certainly not violative of the 14th amendment under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence, despite arguments to the contrary. The application of equal protection to gender issues has always allowed for differences in reproductive biology between the sexes to be the basis for distinctions under law. Due process heavily factors in tradition and the current understanding of the rights at issue as recognized by the states.
That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage.
"Patently unconstitutional" is pretty strong language with respect to almost any issue that hasn't been directly settled by the courts, let alone one as thorny as this.
Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, you whined to the mods about people calling you racist today for stereotyping Arabs. Now you want to kill me? (Or have me killed. Whatever.)
You've made an essentially legal conclusion - X is constitutional. I've gave an overview of why that conclusion is unsupported.
Your response - I'll assume it's because your incapable of actually addressing the underlying reasoning until you demonstrate otherwise - is to fire off another insulting piece of crap.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a lot of interaction between parts of the constitution, in a lot of different places, that often make for the ability to make constitutionality arguments about different peices of legislation one way or the other, but I really don't see the constitutional argument that allows for the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause.
I'd cite the cases, but it's actually a pretty boring aspect of law to me. The thing is, though, I don't need to convince you that you're wrong. I'm not even sure I think you're. What is clear from the extensive writings on the topic, though, is that it is not "patently" unconstitutional, even if it is unconstitutional.
One example: concealed carry permits. Does "full faith and credit" require Massachussetts to allow a Texan to carry his firearm concealed within Massachussetts?
Further, Congress has the power to "prescribe the ... Effect" of one state's act in another state.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a man can marry a woman, why can't a woman? Seems like gender discrimination to me Sure, homosexuals technically have the same rights as heterosexuals, but one could argue that men and women don't have the same rights.
Additionally, I don't think that the state should have an interest in favoring only couples who can procreate with each other. I don't see any reason to place emphasis on how that baby is made instead of how it is raised. Therefore, if gay couples are going to adopt children or have one partner give birth, I think it makes sense to promote gay marriage to provide stability for those children.
I'm not sure that I like the way Massachusetts went about making this decision. I don't know that there should be anything that we shouldn't be permitted to vote on. It is for the courts to decide if a law is unconstitutional, not the legislature.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections.
I don't see that. There are people who won't ever recognize us as being married, no matter what ceremony or legal status we have. They'll never change. But there are a lot of people who, if the law says we're married, will shrug their shoulders and say, "Fine, you're married". And that last group will grow by leaps and bounds in a single generation once the laws stop discriminating against us.
I don't see how what you've written refutes what I said. The acceptance of the lifestyle by this and the next generation of citizens is what is being sought. Not rights. Acceptance.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
If the government were deciding who can claim to be "Jewish," I think the voice of all members of the citizenry should be heard in forming that definition. The issue for me is that a social construct is being foisted upon me without respect for my opinion, or the opinion of many of those making up the society. I feel that a marriage (in the public sense, rather than the religious sense) is an indication that the community accepts the relationship between these two people. Not being allowed to actually demonstrate whether I accept the relationship or not, but rather being told that I accept it makes me feel ill-used.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
senoj: Do you understand how the idea of voting on someone's civil rights is incredibly offensive to those whose equal rights hang in the balance? Especially when said group is one that has traditionally be abused by society at large?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
I get that you don't think they're the same thing. I think they are.
It doesn't even matter if you think the same thing. Or even if they ARE the same thing. In a society governed by a representative system, if enough people maintain a position-even if they acknowledge themselves that it's illegitimate!-you're not supposed to just steamroller over them and say, "Screw you, bigots, I'm in charge!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Can you legally change your sex without surgery? I mean if Adam and Steve want to get married, and there is no legal definition of Man or Woman, can Adam be the Husband and Steve be the wife?
Or would that be cheating?
There are hermorphidites and transgender individuals, while in a very small minority, are either being disallowed from marrying, or are self-defining Male and Female. If they can, why can't Adam and Steve?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: senoj: Do you understand how the idea of voting on someone's civil rights is incredibly offensive to those whose equal rights hang in the balance? Especially when said group is one that has traditionally be abused by society at large?
I see how someone, particularly someone in a homosexual relationship, would find it offensive that I don't want to validate their relationship. I can also see how someone who has come to view this validation as a right would find my refusal offensive. But I would hope that you would realize that while you feel this is a right (civil, equal, or otherwise), I don't. Furthermore, I find it somewhat insulting that you would intimate such a thoughtless stance to me.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
That scene. I should have known. Isn't that also the scene where the guy (a fool BTW) also proposes to get rid of money and have food for free and dress everyone alike and so forth?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I have an odd question:
Can you legally change your sex without surgery? I mean if Adam and Steve want to get married, and there is no legal definition of Man or Woman, can Adam be the Husband and Steve be the wife?
There were actually a few lesbian couples, where one of each couple was a transwoman, who went to Texas in the wake of the Christie Littleton case, where Texas ruled that even with surgery, and even with an official change of gender in ones state of birth, no change of sex is recognized, and got married. Legal lesbian marriages in Texas, of all places. I thought it was a dumb idea, personally, and would never do it, even though I could, technically.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the equal rights argument for SSM because I have not yet been convinced that government sanctioning of marriage should be a right. I think that there are definetely benefits, but I would view those as incentives- kinda like how the govt gives incentives to certain industries and farmers. Though thinking more about it, the children of a same sex couple do deserve the security of married parents just as much as the children of heterosexual parents so, I might be willing to go with equal rights if looking at the children. I would need to think that through more. I did, however, vote against the law against SSM in my state, because I think that recognizing ssm would be an overall plus to society. I think that convincing people that ssm is a plus to society and will not do harm is the best way to argue the issue. I also don't like when anti-ssm people argue about morality. I want convincing arguments that allowing it will actually harm society.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
So does that bicycle come with a reverse feature, or are you backpedaling naturally?
------------
quote:I don't like the equal rights argument for SSM because I have not yet been convinced that government sanctioning of marriage should be a right. I think that there are definetely benefits, but I would view those as incentives- kinda like how the govt gives incentives to certain industries and farmers.
The way I approach questions like this is simple. Unless there is some on-the-face-of-it obvious reason why denying a right really hurts society, I think we should have real, persuasive reasons why it does before we outlaw something...not outlaw it first and insist the subjugated party prove they don't deserve subjugation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by kmbboots: [qb] How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Fourthed.
I'm OK with same-sex couples wanting to have the legal benefits of married heterosexual couples currently enjoy, but I think Kate hit the issue on the head. I did want to ask a question or two: What if homosexual couples gained the same rights under a marriage but it was not called "marriage"? I doubt that would be enough for them. I can't see a future where anybody wanting to get married will say, "Mom and Dad, I'm getting civil unionized!"
Marriage is a term that has religious ties to it, unless we re-define it, which is exactly what a lot of people are trying to prevent. I imagine a great deal of people are OK with homosexuals having marriage rights, but are not OK with calling it marriage.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm OK with same-sex couples wanting to have the legal benefits of married heterosexual couples currently enjoy, but I think Kate hit the issue on the head. I did want to ask a question or two: What if homosexual couples gained the same rights under a marriage but it was not called "marriage"? I doubt that would be enough for them. I can't see a future where anybody wanting to get married will say, "Mom and Dad, I'm getting civil unionized!"
To be honest, so long as the government gets out of the religious business of marriage and into the legal business of civil unions, I don't really care if homosexuals aren't permitted to marry according to the strictures of varying churches. Or if homosexuals are upset about that. I've got no real opinions as a citizen at all on the question of marriage for homosexuals, so long as they are accorded equivalent rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples, should they choose to take those up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the context of a quote only matters when it's scriptural? *blink*
Depends on the context in which the quote is used. If it's being used as a common throw-away line, or slogan, then it doesn't matter, period.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
So does that bicycle come with a reverse feature, or are you backpedaling naturally?
What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to throw in my two cents here: I don't know of any gay couples that want to force churches (in general) to perform marriages. There are probably many who want their particular church to marry them, and petition to make this so, but as far as I'm concerned this is an individual issue within that particular church and the government shouldn't interfere either way. I agree that the only place the government should be involved in this question is in the civil arena.
quote:Homosexuals demanding that their unions be called "marriages" isn't fair, and isn't something the government should EVER decide. Government has one duty here: To provide equal protections and benefits to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.
Everything over and above that, such as marriages, are out of their hands. Homosexuals will have to lobby churches, not Washington if they want that as well.
What homosexuals are demanding is what the governement labels "marriage". Many homosexuals are fine with "civil unions". Many others want those "civil unions" called whatever the straight equivalent is called, so there is no implied inferiority under the law.
On the other hand, no one can stop a homosexual from "calling" his union (civil or religious or what have you) a "marriage" if he wants to. Personally I think it's a moot point. Once we have civil unions, they will be called marriage, even if people with bully pulpits harrangue against the changing of the language. Gays will tell their friends they are getting "married", and their friends will refer to them to as "married". "Civily Unionized" probably won't be used at all, except ironically. In a generation or two, the only ones making the distinction will be lawyers, pedants, and people making a theological distinction.
As for lobbying churches, well, as I said above, that is already being done, with varying degrees of success. Much more success than in the civil arena, I might add.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel that a marriage (in the public sense, rather than the religious sense) is an indication that the community accepts the relationship between these two people.
You must have a better batch of friends and family than me then. My mom and I didn't quite take bets on when my sister's first marriage would self-destruct, but we took it as a given that it would.
Going down and signing a piece of paper is completely different than cautiously considering what it means to both parties to get married. I have friends that publicly admit that they only got their marriage license for the tax benefits. I really don't consider that a marriage. I feel a lot of people are married but don't mean it.
Again, if either the religious folk or the government changed the word, I'd probably be ok with it. Go down and get the inheritance rights and access to the other person's health insurance cause it seems like a good idea at the time. Why not? But it will never be the same to me as a promise to join together before God and devote yourselves entirely to your existance as a couple.
Two completely different ideas are being discussed, and very few people outside of Hatrack want to make the distinction. You can't have progress if you won't actually talk to each other.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
I wasn't referring to your busting Dag's chops, even though I think that's unfair since we're talking about a legal issue here. I was referring to your backpedaling on the quote, which as it turns out doesn't remotely support your statement regarding it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the context of a quote only matters when it's scriptural? *blink*
Depends on the context in which the quote is used. If it's being used as a common throw-away line, or slogan, then it doesn't matter, period.
How odd that someone who studies history would say such a thing. Every quote carries the weight of context. (And you know this, or you would not have given the citation, simply the line itself.) And that goes double for Shakespeare.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
I wasn't referring to your busting Dag's chops, even though I think that's unfair since we're talking about a legal issue here. I was referring to your backpedaling on the quote, which as it turns out doesn't remotely support your statement regarding it.
That quote is a popular and cultural artifact which has taken on a life of its own completely outside of the context of the play in which it was originally found.
Like "Play it again, Sam" and other pieces of popular culture, it doesn't even matter whether it was said precisely as it's normally quoted.
The line "Big Brother is Watching You" was intended, by those using it in its original context, to be pro-Big Brother. But when people say it now, it means exactly the opposite.
"First thing, we kill all the lawyers" is no different. It's a sentiment that's anti-lawyer. Period. In "The Number of the Beast", the protaganists find reference in one of the parallel worlds they visit to "the day they hanged the lawyers" (or some such). That had nothing to do with anarchy, but merely society getting rid of people who live and die by legalistic loopholes.
I once saw an interesting quote in a book on chronology that defined a certain type of pedantry. It was by Kenneth Kitchen, and he wrote that someone who would label the statement "Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926" as inaccurate, because she wasn't Queen when she was born, is a fool and a pedant. When I say that DOMA is patently unconstititonal and Dag comes flying in with claims that it isn't unconstitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, he's evincing exactly that sort of pedantry.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The line "Big Brother is Watching You" was intended, by those using it in its original context, to be pro-Big Brother. But when people say it now, it means exactly the opposite.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that phrase never had a good connotation. Unless it existed before "1984." I know that in "1984," those that were pro-Big Brother were Big Brother himself / themselves, or those tricked into believing the propaganda. The overall connotation was, for me at least, very negative, and I'm fairly certain that that was the connotation intended by the writer.
And throwing around quotes (or just the citations of the quotes) and not expecting the full context of the original quote along with the cultural or social meanings that have been added, is silly. It'd be better to say it without the quotes, or without the citations, or in your own words.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I say that DOMA is patently unconstititonal and Dag comes flying in with claims that it isn't unconstitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, he's evincing exactly that sort of pedantry.
Bull, Lisa. If you think that's what I said, then you need to take a reading comprehension class. EIther that, or you're lying about what I said, which would be really odd, since what I said is on this page. So I'm going to go with inability to comprehend English as the reason you would say something like that.
For clarification, "under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence" does not mean "because the Supreme Court hasn't found it unconstitutional." The reason should be fairly obvious, even to you, especially since I posted greater detail in the same damn post.
I gave (in overview, not detail form) several reasons that support the laws constitutionality. I didn't make it up.
You seem to think "pedantry" means "something Lisa is incapable of drafting a rational response to."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Sure, homosexuals technically have the same rights as heterosexuals, but one could argue that men and women don't have the same rights.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found 
