Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.politics.medicine    |    talk.politics.medicine    |    20,937 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 19,935 of 20,937    |
|    Josh Rosenbluth to Peter Franks    |
|    Re: [O'Reilly Factor] The Supreme Court     |
|    03 Jul 15 16:27:11    |
      XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution       XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor       From: noway@nowhere.com              On 7/3/2015 4:17 PM, Peter Franks wrote:       > 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.              There are over 1000 federal laws that would have to be changed.              > 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!              The word "marriage" itself has meaning. It clearly does to you because       you strongly object when a gay couple uses the word. And not       surprisingly therefore, it has an equally strong meaning to gay people.        Your solution does not bridge that divide.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca