quote: You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
In fairness, a lot of people don't view marriage as being a question of rights and responsibilities. That's secular marriage, not religious marriage.
But then, I'm still in the camp that says let's call the government contract a civil union and stop pretending that paying the court $90 is somehow going to impart a lifetime commitment between two people.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
In fairness, a lot of people don't view marriage as being a question of rights and responsibilities. That's secular marriage, not religious marriage.
But then, I'm still in the camp that says let's call the government contract a civil union and stop pretending that paying the court $90 is somehow going to impart a lifetime commitment between two people.
This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
Legal marriage in this country isn't religious. If it is, then take away my right to get married right now, because I'm just an evil atheist.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
This would be why Prop 8 won: because to many people, it is about marriage, and they don't divide it into two. Both the CA and MA court opinions on the topic give them reason to think so.
In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
This isn't an argument about rights, though.
This is an argument about cultural and social acceptance.
No, it's an argument about rights.
I don't care if you accept it or not. You can hate it, talk about hating it, preach about hating it, and teach your children about hating it. And have fun doing so.
Giving homosexuals the right to be married is not in any way forcing you to accept it. It's about making the government treat every citizen equally.
You, as a private citizen, can treat people as unequally as you like.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that it's about rights over and over doesn't make it true, Javert.
According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
That's a fine attitude for an academic discussion. It's a losing one for a political movement trying to effect change.
I'll give a more mundane example: Disney America.
Disney, with it's usual deftness, acquired options on all the land it needed for Disney America and smoothed over the local and state government officials needed to get fast approval. Disney is probably better than anyone else in America at doing things like that.
The expected public outcry happened, and Disney went into stage two mode: convincing those nearby that Disney America was a Good Thing for the region. They used the standard arguments: property values would increase, new transportation would be built, property rights should be respected, etc. Disney had successfully wielded these arguments in the past, and they were winning. Generally, only those nearby opposed the plan, based on environmental and crowding concerns.
Then a history professor wrote an article about how paving over civil war battlefields to provide Disney's version of history was a travesty. The article had national effect, and overnight the argument shifted from development good/development bad to "Is Disney destroying our history."
Disney continued to wage the same campaign they had successfully waged so many times before. And they lost. They failed to understand what the battle was about.
You may honestly think this issue is about rights. But you won't win that way. To the people whose minds you need to change, this is about marriage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You may honestly think this issue is about rights. But you won't win that way. To the people whose minds you need to change, this is about marriage.
You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds. In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place. A majority should never be allowed to vote away the rights of a minority. I don't care if that annoys the majority or not.
I still cannot wrap my mind around people caring that gay people can get married.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds.
I thought it was about getting states to recognize civil same sex marriage.
quote:In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place.
Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds.
I thought it was about getting states to recognize civil same sex marriage.
quote:In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place.
Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions.
So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
These guys have an interesting take on reversing Prop 8. They want the state of CA to get out of the marriage business completely and just have civil unions for everybody.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Alter this statement, taken from Loving v Virginia, by changing "race" to "sex", and the Federal Constitution would apply.
While the courts often make decisions based upon which group of people is being discriminated against, and therefore what type of scrutiny should apply, these distinctions do not come from the text of the constitution. As such, changing from one classification to another does not change a 14th amendment argument. Loving v Virginia applies to SSM arguments. And, as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alter this statement, taken from Loving v Virginia, by changing "race" to "sex", and the Federal Constitution would apply.
Which is fine for an Internet debate. It's not how the law actually works, though.
Moreover, you ignore entirely the question of what "marriage" actually means. No one in Loving - not the state, not those who favored anti-miscegenation laws - argued that the Lovings were not married. They argued that it was illegal for them to be married.
If the word "marriage" as used at the time of Loving included the concept of different sexes, then the court said exactly nothing about same-sex marriage.
quote:While the courts often make decisions based upon which group of people is being discriminated against, and therefore what type of scrutiny should apply, these distinctions do not come from the text of the constitution. As such, changing from one classification to another does not change a 14th amendment argument. Loving v Virginia applies to SSM arguments. And, as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
The real answer to this is too long for me to post now, but your interpretation is unworkable. The very word "discrimination" is only applicable here if it somehow incorporates a concept of "good enough" reason to distinguish between two people.
Person A is thrown in jail. Almost everyone else is not. Person A is being treated differently. If he received a trial with adequate due process, we don't say he was discriminated against, because we think there was a good enough reason for him to be treated differently.
Standards of scrutiny are simply ways of codifying repeat standards
Without strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis, the court would have to listen to a bunch of economic arguments about the specifics of each different progressive income scheme to see if the reason for the difference in rates was good enough.
There's much, much more to this than I'm able to post here - the above is meant to give the tiniest taste of why standards exist and why they are consistent with the equal protection clause.
quote:as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
The real point, of course, is how a gendered definition of marriage fares under the federal constitution we actually live under, not the one you wished we lived under.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The real answer to this is too long for me to post now, but your interpretation is facile and unworkable. The very word "discrimination" is only applicable here if it somehow incorporates a concept of "good enough" reason to distinguish between two people. "
It does. My point is that different types of people don't get different standards of "good enough." At least not from the constitution. The idea that different groups of people have different standards of "good enough," that has to apply comes from courts, as you say, trying to make things easier for themselves.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is that different types of people don't get different standards of "good enough." At least not from the constitution. The idea that different groups of people have different standards of "good enough,"
And my point is that categorizing standards of scrutiny as giving different amounts of "good enough" to different groups glosses over what's actually happening.
The constitution doesn't give us any standard of scrutiny. The text doesn't support your position any more than it supports an "intermediate scrutiny for everyone" standard.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I'm glad to hear someone finally admit that the desire to toss gay couples a bone with "civil unions" stems from a belief that their relationships aren't "good enough."
(Yes, Dag, I know that's not literally the way in which you're using the phrase.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
This would be why Prop 8 won: because to many people, it is about marriage, and they don't divide it into two. Both the CA and MA court opinions on the topic give them reason to think so.
In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
I may point out that the Canadian politicians at the time of our same-sex marriage debate put quite a bit of effort and placed significant emphasis on noting that churches would be protected from marrying same-sex couples. Just thought I'd toss that in as part of an approach that worked.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And my point is that categorizing standards of scrutiny as giving different amounts of "good enough" to different groups glosses over what's actually happening"
So what is ACTUALLY happening, as applies to marriage, that is glossed over in my description?
"The constitution doesn't give us any standard of scrutiny. "
You're right. It gives us an absolute. We can't give different people different protection under the laws, for any reason, whatsoever, no matter what the state's interest, or the court's interest, in discriminating against some people or groups of people.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right. It gives us an absolute. We can't give different people different protection under the laws, for any reason, whatsoever, no matter what the state's interest, or the court's interest, in discriminating against some people or groups of people.
Right. Now, if you could define "equal protection" without a reference to the "good enough" concept, your point might be valid. Since you can't, there's clearly an element of "good enough" in there somewhere.
I pay a different amount of taxes than you. We're treated differently. Why isn't that a violation of equal protection? Because the reason for the difference is "good enough."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Since no one but me seems to have used the phrase "good enough," "
Apparently, you are debating with no one.
You quoted my use of "good enough." Do you think Tom was adequately summarizing your view on the matter?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Right. Now, if you could define "equal protection" without a reference to the "good enough" concept, your point might be valid. Since you can't, there's clearly an element of "good enough" in there somewhere."
Actually, the "good enough," concept comes in when you try to ask for exceptions to "equal protection," rather then when you try to define it.
"your point might be valid"
You completely missed my point, so I'm not sure that you can comment on its validity or lack thereof.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the "good enough," concept comes in when you try to ask for exceptions to "equal protection," rather then when you try to define it.
No, the good enough concept is inherent to defining what equal protection is. It's a given that government will treat different people differently and that sometimes this is constitutional and sometimes not.
Therefore, we must determine when treating person A differently than person B is constitutional. In legal terms, we must have a standard for evaluating situations in which one person is treated differently than others.
That standard is inherent in the definition of the constitutional violation.
quote:You completely missed my point, so I'm not sure that you can comment on its validity or lack thereof.
No, I didn't miss your point. I disagreed with your point. I provided numerous examples, which you've ignored.
Either government must treat all people exactly the same or there must be a standard for determining when treating someone differently violates equal protection. There's no way around that simple fact.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Adding a wink doesn't make your post harmless. It also doesn't make it funny.
It's funny on its own. Nothing I can do, sadly, is proof against your decision to be harmed.
No, it's not funny. It's actually pretty stupid. "Two people who agree with me on the issue here used the words 'good enough.' I'll say that this is actually an admission by those who disagree with me. Yuk Yuk Yuk!"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. If that's what you think the joke is, it probably does look pretty stupid. I'll let you find the joke on your own, then.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it is. Because as it stands, it is funny. Explaining a joke sucks the funny out. Right now, it's only not funny to the people who don't understand it; explaining it makes it unfunny to everyone.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I have figured it out. You will indeed lose something and I have figured out what it is. If SSM becomes legal, you will lose the state's endorsement of your disapproval of people who, without causing demonstrable harm, choose to live differently than you.
I would not, for a moment, regret that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Nobody is taking away anyone's right to marry. All adults in California are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
The question is: do you have the right to marry whoever you want, and still legally call it a "marriage"? Thus, a better anology would be a state that forbid marriage between people of different religions, or forbid marriage between different races.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I have figured it out. You will indeed lose something and I have figured out what it is. If SSM becomes legal, you will lose the state's endorsement of your disapproval of people who, without causing demonstrable harm, choose to live differently than you.
I would not, for a moment, regret that.
While I appreciate your attempts at understanding my perspective, I can't say that you have come even remotely close. But thank you for trying. And, intentional or not, your incorrect summary of what I believe I will lose came off as quite arrogant.
I still don't think you've answered my question. You said God was loving and just (which I concede), you said that no argument has been presented to you that would change your opinion (which I think is self-evident), but neither of these answers the question of whether you believe you (not God) could be wrong (in an objective sense, relating to the long-term effects on society). I don't expect you to believe you're wrong; but if you can't conceive of the possibility you might be wrong (either through misinterpreting God's will or through mispredicting the long-term good to society), then I think you're deluding yourself into unjustifiable moral certitude.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Nobody is taking away anyone's right to marry. All adults in California are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
No one is taking away Catholics' right to marry. All adult Catholics are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of a different religion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some interesting reaction (and introspection) on the black vote on prop 8:
Reaction (Dan Savage):
quote: Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.
I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.
I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.
This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.
quote: Is this going to be our legacy as a people? Will African Americans prove to be little more than a selfish, regressive, identity group who snatch a symbolic victory for themselves while simultaneously denying full democratic equality to others? If so, then we are no better that the HRC supporters who now wave Sarah Palin banners because they are determined to have a uterus in the White House.
I respect the right of religious communities to restrict marriage in their own faith traditions. Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish communities for example have a variety of restrictions about the kinds of wedding ceremonies they will perform. This is entirely appropriate and consistent with our tradition of freedom of religious practice. No religious body should be forced by the state to perform rituals of any kind in their houses of worship. Allowing gay men and lesbians to marry , does *not* mean that preachers will be forced to perform ceremonies if they have theological disagreements. It is equally true that no religious community should enforce upon the state its definitions of marriage.
Are black people going to be the electoral force that allows us to celebrate the shotgun marriages of pregnant teenagers whose parents are seeking political office while denigrating the loving bonds of consenting and committed adults? I hope not.
...
I am disgusted by the idea that we will mark the anniversary of our own equality with a bigoted vote in California.
I'm pretty disappointed by the split in the Asian vote which was exactly the same as the White vote at 51% against. I'm heartened by the fact that the non-religious voted 90% against. I don't understand their breakdown by "Vote by Religion Among Whites" since non-whites seem to be lumped together regardless of religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude. You are denying people rights based on your unjustifiable moral certitude. You are insisting that your unjusitfiable moral certitude become law that is imposed on people who don't share it.
And your unjusitfiable moral certitude is based on nothing other than "we say so."
My attempt at understanding your perspective is based on the propoganda put forward on your behalf.
- Society will condone homosexuality.
- Our children will be taught that homosexuality is okay. Look at this book that shows a family with two fathers.
- People will think that SSM are normal.
And so forth. Did you have other arguments?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]The "right" to heterosexual marriage comes from the combination of two things, IMO-- biology, and the cultural desire to protect progeny and property. Marriage in many cultures throughout history has been upheld by various governmental forms to accomplish this; and until recently, those particular elements have only been available to heterosexual couples.
There's a tremendous cultural weight behind the idea that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. Even in Greece, despite their misogyny and predilection for homosexuality, men didn't marry other men.
This is to point to the idea that civil marriage is not only religious; there are cultural elements to our concept of marriage that deny the ability of homosexuals to participate, according to our feeling of what marriage actually is.
Your examples are interesting, but ancient. Modern perceptions and psycological constructs such as gender, sexual orientation, etc, are much more developed. I'm not just saying we're smarter or something - what I mean is that we do not simply feel those things; we also analyse them, define them. We think about these things more, we have more leisure time, more time for education, more expectation that we should understand ourselves and modern psycology as an industry has taken all of this to a level never seen in history. We understand a lot more about our own biology and how it affects us. We live longer. We have children because we want to have them, not because we need them to work with us in labour-intensive industries or care for us when we are old.
Further, that the original origins of marriage were based on procreation and property is not surprising, but these origins are not religious. They better reflect the survival instinct and the biological imperative.
Consider also what those origins bring with them. The idea of marriage as a contract between families, with children being seen as a means to status, alliances or property. Where procreation is the basis of marriage, a woman could be rejected by her husband (and her society) if she was barren. Marriage was a reflection of the importance placed on procreation and property, but this was not necessarily a good thing. The early suffragettes didn't reject marriage in the way that feminism sometimes has - they sought equality for women on the basis that this would improve the institution of marriage. They argued that if a woman was independent she would marry out of true affection rather than out of fear or necessity. They really saw the potential for marriage to be a coming together of equals and stronger for it.
We've questioned a lot about marriage as it has been manifest through the ages, and we've changed what marriage means. Saying that modern marriage has stayed true to its ancient origins because it is between opposite sexes, is like saying a Will is the same as a birthday card, because they're both made of paper. The intentions behind marriage, the way it is contracted, the relationship between spouses, what marriage signifies in the law, and the way it can be ended have all changed significantly over time.
The modern interpretation of straight marriage has more in common, I think, with modern same-sex marriage than it does with ancient straight marriage. And to say that same-sex marriage doesn't have those same two basic origins at its root may not be accurate anyway. If a gay couple marry with the intention of ensuring their financial security (inheritance, etc) or creating a more secure environment in which they can raise children (and plenty of them do)then they fit the criteria.
Also, these days more hetero couples choose not to have children. Marriage is not about procreation for them and no-one can force them to have a 'traditional' marriage - yet they are allowed to marry. So can a couple who choose to share no property, if they want to.
That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
Even where religious meaning has been assigned to them, we do not limit the practice of marriage to religion contexts. Those meanings may have relevance to whether or not people can marry within a religion, but should never have been extended to civil marriage. After all, that's why civil marriage exists.
quote: Proposition 8, as I understand it, legislates the traditional view of marriage. It does not, however remove any of the rights granted to Californians already involved in civil unions/domestic partnerships-- which, from the state's view, have equivalent rights to marriages. Nor does it restrict other Californians from engaging in civil unions/domestic partnerships.
Civil unions filled a shortfall in the law. I understand what you're saying, but in the end it would have been better (IMO) to change the civil marriage laws rather than tack on a new category.
quote:No one is taking away Catholics' right to marry. All adult Catholics are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of a different religion.
Yes, that is a much better anology.
I was going to use African-Americans. But then the only response would be protestations of not being racist, which misses the point.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude.
My point is I have no moral certitude. I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
I've already done this retrospection, and I'm convinced that the campaign was won with deception. You can only say "nuh-uh" so many times with only so much effect.
People are naturally scared of the other and there's not really any greater other in our culture than the homosexual. An ad campaign targeted at that inclination is going to be extremely difficult to respond to effectively.
The only reason that this tactic didn't work for Republicans is that that the "otherness" that they tried to tie to Obama just wasn't scary to the people they needed to convince. He's got a funny name? He hung out with a guy that did some bad stuff a long time ago? His preacher said some scary stuff? His progressive tax plan is more progressive than your progressive tax plan? So what?
Additionally, Obama brought something positive to the table. There are arguments for ways that he would improve *my* situation. What's the upside for SSM? Increased civil liberties? Less discrimination? For *other* people? Meh.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
That those origins are not particularly religious has been part of my point for some time now. I'm not sure why you decided to point this out; did you think someone was making a religious argument against SSM?
Those who have mentioned religion in this thread have done so in the context of the idea that it's acceptable for religious institutions and individuals to push for legislation based on their religious reasoning.
That is NOT the same as arguing against SSM specifically using religious strictures.
Do you see the difference?
quote:ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway
That ancient origins of marriage are not binding is true; that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not. Obviously, a great many people feel that marriage does preclude same sex couples.
As demonstrated, at least in California.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude.
My point is I have no moral certitude. I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
And yet you are willing to insist that other people are required by law to abide by your position.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
