XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 7/3/2015 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 7/3/2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > When it comes to whether it is constitutional under the federal   
   > constitution, it makes no difference how it was passed.  Ordinary   
   > legislation and a state constitutional amendment have to overcome the   
   > same hurdle.   
   >   
   >> Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.   
   >   
   > That's not true.  For example, you can't collect spousal Social Security   
   > benefits if you are not married.   
      
   Then modify the law to have the person name a beneficiary.   
      
   I did it for my life insurance policy and it wasn't any big deal at all.   
     Surely government with its trillion dollar budget and multi-trillion   
   dollar debt can arrange for something as simple as that.   
      
   And I assure you that NO ONE will object to that on religious, amoral,   
   or abnormal grounds.   
      
   Wow.  I came up with a solution that is simple AND not divisive.  I'm   
   special after all!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)