it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

#27
#27
CSpindizzy said:
Limits are imposed on groups all the time and are ruled as Constitutional. So if you are arguing against limits you clearly do not understand law and Constitution.
Yes, if one argues against a limitation, they do not understand the constitution of the republic. Brilliant. I guess we can just shut down the politics forum.
You have this thing with 'being cornered', 'trapped', etc. I can't help it your logic doesn't hold up. It's not about gotcha. It's about consistency. You and others say there is no place for personal values but then turn around and say they are fine IF used within YOUR own personal moral standards. One minute a Biblical basis is not allowed and the next minute it is fine.
I am just teasing you because it is so transparent when you are trying to back me into a corner with lame sixth grade reasoning that you would never use on hardly any other topic but the issue of gay marriage. I can't help it if you can't understand the "terms" I use, as you said, or that you refuse to even acknowledge how ridiculous your "slippery slope" reasoning that you have repeatedly thrown out is.

It isn't that there isn't a place for personal values, it is just that personal values should be just that- personal. If someone isn't hurting you, you don't have the right to dictate terms of their personal life to them. You don't have to like it, but you shouldn't be able to vote to discriminate against them. I think the part you are having a hard time grasping is the bible is irrelevant to me, one way or the other. Whatever someone wants to believe is fine, as long as they don't hurt anyone else or try to push that belief system onto or over others. So no, I don't care if someone advocates that same position from a biblical angle or from a logical one. Likewise, I am against someone advocating discrimination against a group for nonbiblical reasons just as much. It isn't me who is seeing the world as "believers and non-believers," so don't project that line of thinking onto me. I don't see Christians as my enemy, I just know they have a "you are with us or you are against us" attitude these days.

And I am waiting for you to define marriage. Call it a trap, cornering you, or whatever you want. But you come on here saying this is about equality in reference to marriage so I ask you again, please define the standard that meets your values and morals that is deemed "equal". Same goes for anyone else on this side.
Click to expand...

See bold for the first two segments.

For the last segment:

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Click to expand...

That's how I define marriage.
 
#28
#28
That's about as ambiguous as you can legally get. So age does not matter? And polygamy does not matter? And are you limiting it to #1 or to the whole definition? Because right now, nothing is stopping 2 and 3.

And something for you. CA has one of the most broad domestic partnership definitions out there. Frankly there is a thin line between the two in CA. So right now, I see no reasonable argument for this case to have even been brought up in CA.
 
#29
#29
CSpindizzy said:
That's about as ambiguous as you can legally get. So age does not matter? And polygamy does not matter? And are you limiting it to #1 or to the whole definition? Because right now, nothing is stopping 2 and 3.

And something for you. CA has one of the most broad domestic partnership definitions out there. Frankly there is a thin line between the two in CA. So right now, I see no reasonable argument for this case to have even been brought up in CA.
Click to expand...

For point one, I guess you can take it up with Merriam and Webster. Seriously, you could carry on like this with every definition, rule, or concept. "What is a cup? What if it is made of glass, is it then a glass or a cup? Or are all glasses cups? How do you know someone won't accidentally try to drink out of a pair of spectacles because they're also known as glasses?"

And on and on and on. It's just being intentionally obtuse.


As for point two, it was brought up because some gay people don't want to be given another title than "married," because they feel their relationship or partnership is a marriage as much as a straight couple's. Assuming it is, then not letting them use the same term smacks of "separate but equal," which as we all know has been found to be "not equal" before.

So, you think a partnership of two homosexuals can't be equal to a marriage? Why isn't it, outside of your religion?
 
#30
#30
Wow. I can't say this any other way. I am asking you in light of this recent event in CA what your legal definition of marriage is. I will help you out since you seem to not be able to grasp this....

1)Is it limited to just two people?
2)What age is the minimum?
3)Are there any other limitations such as cultural, religious, etc. that are allowed?
4)Is this in the domain of the feds or still in any jurisdiction of the state?

I cannot say it any differently than what is the full legal boundary that defines marriage. If you still keep referring to Webster as your source for legal guidance (which is odd in itself) this will not hold legal muster. You can keep saying "obtuse", "Slippery slope", "what is a cup" or whatever. It is YOU who talked about equality, legal rights, civil rights, etc. I am simply asking you what the new legal standard for marriage should be. If you are going to argue legality or constitutionality of something, I would hope you could give a new standard that would hold up to legal and constitutional scrutiny. If Webster is our new basis for defining rights, limitations, and the constitutional principles, I guess I will trash my Con Law books and replace it with a Wesbter on my shelf.
 
#31
#31
When Jerry Black called and asked me if I would preach today (July 4th), I quickly reminded him that I am not an American. In fact, I am a British citizen. He assured me that it was OK and suggested that it might be good to hear another point of view. I’m not sure of the wisdom of that, but there is in fact another point of view. You see, when you were in high school and took a course in history, you were taught that in the latter part of the 1700’s you fought what was called the War of Independence which resulted in the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and that freed you from British rule.Back in Britain, when I was in high school and took a course in history, we were taught that in the latter part of the 1700’s there was this little uprising in the colonies in which some colonists had the audacity to suggest that they would be better off without British rule, and indeed were prepared to fight for it. The trouble was that we were already at war with France and most of our troops were already engaged. We did, however, have a couple of old battleships that were not being used and managed to scrape up a few soldiers to send over. We knew it would be a losing cause, but it would have been unsportsmanlike not to respond to the invitation for a fight. Of course, we lost, and that’s how America was founded. So there’s the other side of the story.Someone asked me once (I hope without thinking) if we had July 4th in Britain. Of course, I assured them that we did…every year between the 3rd and the 5th. But we don’t celebrate our losses.Now I have to be very careful in what I say. My wife, who is an American, keeps threatening to have me deported every time I get out of line. I doubt that she can really do that, but the threat is sufficient to give me pause, so let me get serious.I came to this great country in 1962 and, from the outset, I liked what I found. I liked the American people – you are warm and friendly. I liked the openness of the way of life and, more importantly, coming as I did from a country that had embraced socialism, I liked the fact this country provided the opportunity to get ahead and to become whatever I wanted to work towards. When I finished seminary I made some overtures towards going back to Britain to minister, and I have to be honest that I was not too disappointed when nothing opened up, especially when a number of churches here were eager to secure my services. And so I have stayed here all these years and hopefully have contributed to the fabric of this nation.Over the years, as I came to a greater awareness of the foundation of this nation, I discovered a country that was quite unique and exceptional in many respects. I sometimes think that those of us who have come to these shores from a different culture are more acutely aware of that. The thing that makes this country so unique is the fact that it was founded upon Christian principles. Now, of course, I realize that it is considered politically incorrect and unfashionable to make such a statement in our day. The current wisdom is to paint the Founding Fathers as being merely Deists rather than Christians. To make such a claim, however, one must ignore the writings of the founders and the fact that a large percentage of the early settlers were Puritans who had come to this country seeking religious freedom. It is also of deep significance that, prior to the writing of the Constitution, the country had experienced what was called the Great Awakening. Under the preaching of men like George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards there was a profound commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And I think it can be shown that the Founding Fathers came under that influence. The result was that the laws of this country were based upon the Ten Commandments rather than upon Roman law that was the basis for the rule in most European nations. That is why, to this very day, on the wall behind which the justices of the Supreme Court are seated you find the Ten Commandments etched. It is not surprising, therefore, that more than once in the past the Supreme Court has affirmed that this is a Christian nation.You are, of course, aware that in the formation of a government the Founders came up with three separate and distinct branches – Judicial, Legislative and Executive. But do you know what influenced that decision? It was Isaiah 33:22. That verse reads thus: "For the Lord is our Judge, our Lawgiver, and our King. It is He who will save us." The Lord is our Judge – that is the judicial side. The Lord is our Lawgiver – that is the legislative side. The Lord is our King – that is the executive side. The concept was that, if God was to save and protect this nation, then he must be over all three branches of government. That is what it means to be one nation under God.Now I would submit that therein lays the reason that this is a country that has been blessed in so many ways and that should not come as a surprise. The Bible says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” That is Psalm 33:12. The Contemporary English Version renders it this way: “The Lord blesses each nation that worships only him.” And back in the early 60’s when I came here that was a principle that was still understood and sometimes voiced. But somewhere along the way we’ve lost sight of that important principle.In 1782 the following resolution was adopted, and I quote: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools." Daniel Webster said, “Education is useless without the Bible.” But in 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was unconstitutional in the public school system. And in what to me is an amazing statement, they offered the following as justification for that decision. "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."In the founding of this nation, prayer was an important component. George Washington said, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” And you find, for example, President John Adams in 1799 calling for a national day of prayer and fasting. In 1965, however, the courts said that it was unconstitutional for a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.I’ve already mentioned the importance of the Ten Commandments, but listen to what James Madison had to say. "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” But in 1980, the Supreme Court outlawed the Ten Commandments in public schools, and they offered this justification for their decision. "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."As I have already stated, there was a time when the basis for the founding of this nation was abundantly clear. Patrick Henry said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded?not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” And in 1892, the Supreme Court was quite emphatic when it declared that this is a Christian nation. I found it very disturbing, therefore, to hear our current president contradict that recently when he publicly declared that this is not a Christian nation. And what concerns me is this. When the foundation is eroded, the whole thing collapses.But regardless of what I think, the more important issue is “What does God think?” And I rather suspect that he would say to us what he said to the church at Ephesus. “I have this against you that you have left your first love.” And I doubt that few of us would want to argue against such an assessment. But perhaps with a feeling of helplessness we ask, “But what can I do? I’m just one amongst millions.” And I’d like to formulate an answer to that question. I have no doubt that there are things that can be done politically, but I’m not a politician. I am a theologian and I believe that the solutions are theological rather than political. When God accuses the church at Ephesus of leaving their first love, his solution is simply this: repent and do the things that you did at the beginning. Now you might want to argue at this point and say, “Well, that’s all very well, but that applied to a church. We’re talking about a nation, and there’s a big difference between a church and a nation.” And of course, that is correct. So let me take you to another verse.In 2 Chronicles 7:14 you read these words. “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” And here you have the promise of God for the healing of a nation, but notice where the onus falls. God places the responsibility upon those whom he describes as “my people who are called by my name.” That’s you and me; that is the Church of Jesus Christ. And there are essentially two things he calls us to do. Positively, we are to pray and to seek his face. Negatively, we are to humble ourselves and to turn from our evil ways. And I want to deal with the negative first. I don’t think that this refers necessarily to some great moral failure. I think the great failure of the church in our day is its silence. As the people of God, we are to be the conscience of the nation, but we watch what is happening and say nothing. On the night before Hitler marched on Europe, the bishops of the German church met together in a specially called meeting. It sounds good until you learn that the meeting was called to discuss what color of vestments to wear on special days. Some time later a number of the German pastors were jailed for failing to preach the party line. One of them was a man by the name of Martin Niemoller. After the war, in an address, he said this: "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Sometimes the greatest sin is silence. I remember, when the Bible was taken out of the public schools that most of us, instead of speaking up, we rationalized it. We said, “Well the Bible should be taught in the home and in the church.” Which was fine if you had Christian parents who took their children to church and Sunday School. But in the process, we left behind whole generations without any moral compass, and now we are reaping the consequence.Positively God tells us to humble ourselves and to pray and to seek his face. And I think of that Old Testament prophet by the name of Habakkuk watching his nation disintegrate. And he goes to God and prays this prayer, “O Lord, revive your work in the midst of the years.” He calls for the intervention of God. He says, in effect, “This is beyond me. Our only hope is that you would come down and do your mighty works again.” One of the things that has struck me in my reading of the history of the Christian Church is the number of times when God has supernaturally intervened into the course of history, and when all the facts come to light, you discover that there were one or two people who sought his face daily to do so. My first encounter with this came when I was still a young boy and I heard the story. On the Island of Lewis, off the West coast of Scotland, over a brief period of time, almost everyone on that island turned to Christ. There were no evangelistic campaigns, no special preaching, but suddenly, and for no apparent reason, people were going around seeking for someone to answer the same question that the Philippian jailor asked in the Book of Acts: “What must I do to be saved?” And later when people did some research, it was discovered that there were two elderly women on that island who had prayed for three years for that to happen. You don’t have to be a leader; you don’t have to be a preacher. I am reminded of these words from James chapter 5, “The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. ?Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. ?Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” So my challenge to you is to make prayer for this nation a priority.Speaking as an outsider, I find that there is a mistaken notion in this country. The notion is that the rest of the world is against you. Of course, it is true that there are a few nations, particularly in the Middle East who hate you, but it’s simply not true for the majority. Apart from those nations, perhaps the most vilified nation is France, but that’s because you don’t understand the French. I think I do. And the average French person today still understands that they would be speaking German had you not come to the rescue in World War II, and they are grateful for that. And the vast majority of the European nations recognize the need for America to be strong and to provide world leadership and the moral leadership that you have provided in the past. Many years ago, a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville came to observe this country. After doing so, he noted that your independence was based upon your dependence upon God. And he warned that if this nation ever loses its dependence on God that it would lose its independence.And so, on this Day of Independence as you celebrate the many good things that this country has to offer and the blessings that you enjoy, let’s not forget the One who is the source of these blessings. And may you this day renew your dependence upon God with the vow that you will no longer be silent and with the commitment to pray and to seek his face for this nation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
We have personal legal definitions? Or are you just asking me for an opinion?

I'm not trained as a lawyer, I just know what discrimination looks like when I see it. I do know that the dictionary definition of a word IS examined in legal proceedings.

1)This has nothing to do with whether two people of the same gender can marry, and is a diversion. We aren't discussing polygamy.
2)This has nothing to do with whether two people of the same gender can marry, and is a diversion. We are not discussing the minefield of "age of consent" or parental rights.
3)No idea what you are even getting at, here. We are talking about government-recognized marriage, so religion doesn't really enter into the equation-- unless you think the government should recognize atheist marriages.
4)When it comes to discrimination, it becomes a federal issue (see integration). It shouldn't have to come to that.
 
#36
#36
Hard to read, but I went through it. I think many will like it. Not my cup of tea, though. :)
 
#37
#37
Quote:
Originally Posted by volfanjustin
The people of California have voted for a ban, activists judges continue to overrule the will of the people. I don't see any way he could be impartial.


BloodRUNZOrange said:
]i really hope you didint say activist judges. this tactic by the right really scares me....[/B]straight out of gerbles handbook...

picture.php
Click to expand...

Judge Vaughn Walker was first nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1987... his nomination was stalled in the Judiciary Committee. George H W Bush nominated him again in 1989 and he was comfirmed.
 
#41
#41
So what definition of marriage is not discrimination? Simple question. If you're confident on the issue you can answer it. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to answer it. Polygamy is part of the issue. Read the rendering. It comes down to marriage and how due process and equal protection apply. You yourself argued it is an "equality" issue.

If marriage and its legal definition comes down to equality, then let us be legally fair. Why is it wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation but according to you it is fine to discriminate on numbers (polygamy)?

You see this is the problem. People get all up in arms about an issue and demand change. But when you ask ok what should we change it to, the answer is crickets chirping. You ask for a law and legal definition to be changed because of discrimination. Supposedly the issue boils down to discrimination. So what definition should replace the current one that does not discriminate?

I hate to break this to you IP but you are being a hypocrite on the issue. You're up on some high pedestal preaching like this is about equality but when the legal issues that are opened regarding this case are mentioned, you retreat. You keep hiding behind some attack against those wishing to instill religious values on society. If this were truly about equality and discrimination, you could come up with an answer beyond gays being discriminated against. That's what it is boiling down to here for you...it's a swipe at the "religious bigots" and this so called hatred of gays. You get cornered on equality and you retreat. You get cornered on discrimination and you retreat. You get cornered on consent and you retreat. Even your reference to #4 you say this is a discrimination issue but when other discrimination regarding marriage is brought up, you again retreat.
 
#42
#42
CSpindizzy said:
So what definition of marriage is not discrimination? Simple question. If you're confident on the issue you can answer it. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to answer it. Polygamy is part of the issue. Read the rendering. It comes down to marriage and how due process and equal protection apply. You yourself argued it is an "equality" issue.

If marriage and its legal definition comes down to equality, then let us be legally fair. Why is it wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation but according to you it is fine to discriminate on numbers (polygamy)?

You see this is the problem. People get all up in arms about an issue and demand change. But when you ask ok what should we change it to, the answer is crickets chirping. You ask for a law and legal definition to be changed because of discrimination. Supposedly the issue boils down to discrimination. So what definition should replace the current one that does not discriminate?

I hate to break this to you IP but you are being a hypocrite on the issue. You're up on some high pedestal preaching like this is about equality but when the legal issues that are opened regarding this case are mentioned, you retreat. You keep hiding behind some attack against those wishing to instill religious values on society. If this were truly about equality and discrimination, you could come up with an answer beyond gays being discriminated against. That's what it is boiling down to here for you...it's a swipe at the "religious bigots" and this so called hatred of gays. You get cornered on equality and you retreat. You get cornered on discrimination and you retreat. You get cornered on consent and you retreat. Even your reference to #4 you say this is a discrimination issue but when other discrimination regarding marriage is brought up, you again retreat.
Click to expand...

Legal marriage should be open to all adults in a loving committed relationship.

Now, where did I say it was okay to discriminate on polygamy? I deliberately avoided directly weighing in on that because I knew you wanted me to say something like that. So, I would like you to show me where I said something against polygamy. You said it was okay to discriminate against it. So prove it.


This is a discussion revolving around Proposition 8 in California, is it not? Proposition is NOT a law being passed to allow gay marriage, is it? No, it is a constitutional amendment to in effect BAN gay marriage. Who is really the one advocating for a change in California? Apparently the legal definition, as is, leaves the door open for gay marriage. but some don't like that, and want to change it. So it DOES boil down to active discrimination.

If you are hearing crickets chirping, shut the window. I am typing to you that I think gays should be allowed to marry, which they ARE allowed to in California as the definition of marriage is there without Prop 8, which is what this thread is about. It is you who is actually advocating for a more rigid legal definition of marriage, not me for a looser one in this specific thread. I've yet to see you produce a definition regarding number of people, age, external factors, etc. that you keep asking me for, when your "side" of the issue is the one actually trying to change the legal definition of marriage in California

If you think I am retreating, it may be due to an optical illusion from running circles around you. You don't seem to understand that advocating for the rights of gays to marry has nothing to do with many of the things you keep bringing up, and even if it did it is YOUR opinion that the definition of marriage should be amended, not mine.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
That the majority like or don't like something has never, and will never, be the guide for what is Constitutional, legal, morally right.
Click to expand...

Agree about Constitutional but not about legal and morally right is a crapshoot.

Majority is highly relevant to what is legal provided it is Constitutional.
 
#44
#44
I thank you for keeping me amused. I don't have to produce a definition. I am not the one saying discrimination over and over. You avoided because you couldn't keep your argument straight. Again, you're all over the board with what you're arguing. Even within one post you say this was about gays having a right to marry and then it was discrimination in general.

The argument comes down to the decision. The judge said this was an issue on due process and equal protection. I'm looking at his argument of due process and he's off base. CA has the means for gay couples to get rights like hetero couples. It's a domestic partnership route but it does give an alternative that allows benefits. The measure had NO effect on domestic partnerships OR gay marriages performed before the prop went into effect. The means to protect the marriage side of the issue were in manner given by the state constitution - petitions were submitted to get the measure on the ballot. The measure was voted on and the majority found in favor of it. Seeing as how there was clearly due process here and there are legal alternatives to "marriage" with the same rights, tell me where someone's Constitutional rights are infringed?

I'm not sure where you got the idea "My side" is the one trying to change the legal definition of marriage in CA. On that you are clearly wrong. The definition remains the same but moves it from law to the Constitution of the state of CA. Right now I am looking at 31 states that have shot down initiatives to allow for gay marriage with about 5 states allowing for. These all have gone through due process as well. And are you NOW saying that it comes down to changing the legal definition? Because the way I see it, it's "YOUR" side (if we're keeping score or something like that) that is changing the law. If it is a matter of Constitutional violations why are we going through the means of changing the law rather than going through the courts and arguing that there is a right to marry? Maybe that right is listed in the same place privacy is as well.
 
#45
#45
Your argument is identical to that of segregationists.

Again, Prop 8 is about changing the definition of marriage in the constitution in California. I am against Prop 8. Why do you keep asking me for my definition, when I am of the position it shouldn't be changed, and should be in line with the dictionary's interpretation?

If domestic partnerships and marriages are equal, why are you saying marriage has to be protected?


I am still waiting for you to show me where I said it was okay to discriminate against polygamists.

I am also still waiting in the other thread for you to show me where I said if something occurs in nature, people should be okay for people to do it.
 
#46
#46
IPorange said:
Your argument is identical to that of segregationists.

Again, Prop 8 is about changing the definition of marriage in the constitution in California. I am against Prop 8. Why do you keep asking me for my definition, when I am of the position it shouldn't be changed, and should be in line with the dictionary's interpretation?

If domestic partnerships and marriages are equal, why are you saying marriage has to be protected?


I am still waiting for you to show me where I said it was okay to discriminate against polygamists.

I am also still waiting in the other thread for you to show me where I said if something occurs in nature, people should be okay for people to do it.
Click to expand...

Nope but your logic is identical to flawed. See both highlighted areas. You answered your own question.

You say the definition shouldn't be changed but then you say it should be the definition as stated in the dictionary. You do realize you contradicted yourself right? It would have to be changed in order to meet your Webster version. Are you bothering to read what you type?
 
#47
#47
CSpindizzy said:
Nope but your logic is identical to flawed. See both highlighted areas. You answered your own question.

You say the definition shouldn't be changed but then you say it should be the definition as stated in the dictionary. You do realize you contradicted yourself right? It would have to be changed in order to meet your Webster version. Are you bothering to read what you type?
Click to expand...


I've been crystal clear that I don't think it should be arbitrarily limited to heterosexual couples. The original California constitution didn't do that (hence Prop 8), and the dictionary doesn't do that.
 
#48
#48
Actually the definition was NOT changed. Again, you are incorrect. It placed a line in the state constitution defining marriage between A man and A woman. Technically this banned polygamy as well. This is one reason the Mormons became quite involved in the issue. So again, this did NOT just "ban" gay marriage. It took what was law and made into the Constitution. NO definition was changed. If anything what was already there was just made legally stronger.

You said the definition should not be changed. It wasn't. Those in favor of the law on the books wanted to place it into the Constitution to add legal weight. The advocates of this proposition saw the advocates of 'change' (yes the change was coming from 'your' direction) and decided to solidify their legal bearing.

Frankly, I'm not one who uses a dictionary to define what laws are. Seeing as how there are many dictionaries and more recently they are used to insert political ideology, I'm a little cautious as to just going to Borders and picking a random one to decide what I live by. I'm quite surprised you would do such a thing as well. Which dictionary is the "official" dictionary?

And I love how you're now going with the "arbitrarily limited to heterosexual couples" when you made it so much a gay marriage issue and wouldn't even go beyond that.
 
#50
#50
IPorange said:
Are you claiming the Mormon church is against Prop 8?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No I didn't. It's amazing how you just blaze away typing and do not bother reading. Not sure how you got that I was claiming Mormons were against Prop 8 for me just saying they got involved on the issue. :crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top