This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
You don't have to deal with anything you don't want to.
Which is sort of the critique of this case, always and forever, hasn't it been?
Which is why this definition has extra modifiers. It's a legislated system of positive law. It's the reason I didn't just say "positive law."
Yeah, I understand what a modifier is. You can be extremely set on a code, but when the judiciary leads, and statutory follows, who is setting the code, or, to use a verb, codifying?
The legislature, when they enact statutes codifying the judicial decision. Otherwise no one is codifying.
Too bad there's not a thread where you lawyers could talk about fun stuff like this.
Sounds like the legislature didn't codify the modifier enough. At least that's my takeaway.
In his defense, the lawyer thread was created to avoid the lawyers ruining other threads. As this one has been ruined a good long time ago, don't know if the same rationale pertains.
Oregon
Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Agree, but its still a victory against them.Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Agreed,Agree, but its still a victory against them.Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Basically yes. See Koya's post.I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Sounds like you get it.I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
The right to call it marriage is chief among those rights.Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
How about the right not to call it a marriage?The right to call it marriage is chief among those rights.Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
No one should stand in your way of calling it whatever you wish. Just as no one should stand in the way of any one person or group to call it as they wish - just the same rights for all.How about the right not to call it a marriage?The right to call it marriage is chief among those rights.Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
Of course they were. Those 2/3s were trying to protect their own sense of what marriage is and codify that into law. I mean, look how interracial marriage has both ruined the institution and denied same race couples from having their freedoms.
Well I didn't say that, but at this point in history not many non bigoted groups are left in opposition so there not that much of a difference,I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
So the key is first to get classified as a group. The left loves placing people in groups. Then a group can get special laws passed for them. Gays had the right to marry before just like all other Americans. So if there were enough people to get group status who want to marry their pets then what?Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!
See?
So the key is first to get classified as a group. The left loves placing people in groups. Then a group can get special laws passed for them. Gays had the right to marry before just like all other Americans. So if there were enough people to get group status who want to marry their pets then what?Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!
See?
Yes we all know the right never puts people into groups to try to define them and create wedge issues. Whole post is a joke and not a good one.
You are arguing a point that I'm not making and that I agree with you on. I don't know how else to say itActually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!
See?
In your example, it's one thing to disagree with interracial marriage but understand why it has to exist in our society. It's another to disagree and try to prevent it. It's one thing to disagree with same sex marriage but understand why it has to exist with the way our laws are written. It's another to disagree with it and try to prevent people from doing it.
Go ahead and blame the left for your desire to discriminate at best, and potentially some latent bigotry as well. Does that make you feel better?So the key is first to get classified as a group. The left loves placing people in groups. Then a group can get special laws passed for them. Gays had the right to marry before just like all other Americans. So if there were enough people to get group status who want to marry their pets then what?Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance. Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
See?
Totally reasonable. I won't ever deny someone the right to express that they feel something is wrong, even if I feel that's somewhat misguided or even bigoted, or worse.You are arguing a point that I'm not making and that I agree with you on. I don't know how else to say itActually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
See?
People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.Go ahead and blame the left for your desire to discriminate at best, and potentially some latent bigotry as well. Does that make you feel better?No one is asking for any special rights... Just the same rights and freedoms and equality under the law as others to marry the person they love and have extended to them all the legal benefits therein.So the key is first to get classified as a group. The left loves placing people in groups. Then a group can get special laws passed for them. Gays had the right to marry before just like all other Americans. So if there were enough people to get group status who want to marry their pets then what?Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance. Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.Another victory against bigotry.
However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.
See?
I'm not going to go into a debate that, honestly, is literally being settled almost daily in our courts. You want to hold I to antiquated opinions, take a bigoted perspective, deny people rights freedom and human dignity, that's your choice.
Just own it. Recognize who and what you are and the harm you wish to extend. Don't blame the left, be proud of your anachronistic views. But don't pass your desire to continue discrimination and bigotry on anyone other than yourself.
It is what it is. You believe what you believe. You are what you are. Own it - if you don't like how it feels perhaps, like so many of us in this thread and in this country, recognize that sometimes we need to evolve our views because we were misguided .
And being desirous of discrimination and bigotry., especially when you can no longer blame being a product of the times, is pretty misguided IMO.
You make your own choice.
