wrote in message No, the opinion that the laws are being applied justly really is only an opinion. You have presented no legitimate reasons for marriage between same-love couples to be denied. Because not all of them involve getting a license from the state. Sure they can. But you have yet to prove that to be the case this time. No, it is you who doesn't get it. Oh? Then what about all those DOMA laws? What about the marriage amendments to the state consbreastutions? They don't need to get involved in it. All they need to do is issue the license. You're right, it's not the best example. It's not even a good example. Bicycle riders are not denied a driver's license. Why Higher Standards for the U.S. 1693torture n 1: extreme mental distress syn: anguish, torment 2: unbearable physical pain syn: torment 3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the... No, sweetie, you made an accusation against several judges. An accusation that can get a judge removed from the bench, or at least make them unable to hear any more cases regarding this matter. You must prove that accusation to be true if you expect me to take you seriously. Just giving the standard knee-jerk "activist judges legislating from the bench" reaction every time a judge doesn't comply with your prejudices isn't going to win you any debates. My argument is already made. Judges interpret consbreastutional law, such as the gender discrimination laws in order to make their decisions. Yep. Do you? Sancbreasty has nothing to do with church or religion? The exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the First Amendment, but they are implied. No, dear, it is you who doesn't get it. There doesn't have to be a compelling reason for the state to be a party to such a contract. But there DOES have to be a compelling reason for the state to deny such a contract. -- Lurlean Lie #31: Did you know he finally admitted he's got smegma?
|
