XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:6338pa9thr34u0r28lqvu2c8ckd4l893vv@4ax.com...   
      
   Just because you put yourself outside of social norms does not mean there   
   must be a remedy for normal people wanting to keep you at a distance.   
      
   The court should consider the fact that many states have had elections to   
   define what a social norm is, in this case marriage shall be between one man   
   and one woman, and the court by its action has nullified every election ever   
   to be held again if just one person feels he/she is slighted by the outcome.   
      
   When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass or   
   fail. If pass, nothing else. If fail, then the legislation is reworked or   
   abandonded. But when the voters of a state pass an amendment to the   
   constitution, then that is a higher hurdle to knock down than mere   
   legislation passed by a governing body.   
      
   The 10th Amendment says that anything not covered by the constitution is the   
   perview of the states to legislate. The Supremes have done serious damage to   
   the Constitution in the name of making a relatived few THAT PUT THEMSELVES   
   OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF "NORMAL", be forced upon the rest of us.   
      
   Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.   
   Everything. Gay marriage is nothing more than a slap in the face to people   
   that hold dear the idea that one man and one woman are the basis of a   
   marriage relationship.   
      
   The Supremes have struck down the entire notion of States Rights, not to   
   mention the right of people to set boundaries of social behavior. Be gay,   
   but accept that your gayness is not considered normal in any way by almost   
   everybody else in the room.   
      
   I'm going to fight a leash-law violation because my dog does not need to be   
   on a leash, despite everybody else saying that he does. It's not my problem   
   that your dog bites, so you keep it on a leash so you can control him as you   
   are required to do. I can control my dog without a leash, so the rules of   
   social order do not apply to me. Leashes? I don't need no stinking leashes.   
      
   There's nothing in the constitution that says my dog must be leashed,   
   therefore any legislation that demands it is illegal. That's the dumbest   
   legal argument I have ever heard, but it is exactly the same as the gay   
   marriage argument -- nothing says gays cannot marry, so they must be allowed   
   to. More dumb is that anybody bought the argument, and now we have gay   
   marriage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)