Wrong -- The Arena

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, May 08, 09:21:16pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thursday, February 26, 09:00:44pm
Author: Joe C.
Author Host/IP: c-24-7-127-136.client.comcast.net / 24.7.127.136
Subject: Wrong
In reply to: ST 's message, "NYT on homosexual marriage" on Wednesday, February 25, 09:53:34pm

If marriage was but a symbolic civil event announcing in public a couple's devotion to one another or if it were a religious ceremony similar to a baptism that had no legal consequences or conveyed no legal advantages to the couple, you might be on firmer ground.

But it isn't, so you aren't.

The so-called "activist judiciary" to which you refer is only attempting to interpret the laws pertaining to equal treatment. Even if the overwhelming will of the people is to deny some class or group of people equality, it cannot be accomplished by slapping some initiative or legislative patchwork on the books. It would have to be done by amending the constitution to remove those troublesome elements pertaining to equal treatment. THAT's the amendment that Bush is proposing - one that takes away the right to equal treatment from those who don't fit the
"one man - one woman" model.

I can't believe this amendment is actually being proposed and seriously considered. Which group will be the next to have their rights taken away by constitutional amendment just because they comprise a small percentage of the population and can't put together influential PACs?

Bush is once again attempting to usurp states' rights and short-circuit the judicial process by proposing an amendment that would settle the issue before its had its day in court.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]