wrote in message As was yours. Correct. But if people's rights are being limited, as judges are finding, then the law should be applied justly. Just like sixty years ago people would have said it was ridiculous to even contemplate the possibility that the courts would change the definition of marriage to include interracial couples. And like any unjust law, they must be overturned. So cite the laws these judges are writing. Consbreastutional law. That's their job. Let me guess. You never won a debate, except in your own mind. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ...Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Yep. There is no "sancbreasty of the family" in US law because of the separation of church and state. Not writing law, overturning unjust laws. And there is just as much reason for same-love marriage as there is for opposite-love marriage. On the contrary, it is you who slept through Logic 101. Those who do not operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner will eventually lose the privilege if they're caught enough times. Married couples can refuse to have children their whole life and they will not get their marriage license taken away from them. -- Lurlean Lie #25: "He talks to people on this thread about a doing me harm."
|
