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 1:27 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No, just one.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   No.  It has no meaning to homosexuals other than they see something that   
   they can't have but want.   
      
   >   Your solution does not bridge that divide.   
      
   It is an artificial contrived divide to justify the abnormal intolerant   
   minority that has no ability for rational thought and reconciliation,   
   instead making demands of the rational normal people to conform to their   
   perversion.  Their response: "get used to it."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)