or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by MaxParrish

If you mean that a "mother with child" is a female who is pregnant then the fetus must a child, in order to abort it (as you predicated). If you mean a born fetus/child with a mother then no, we don't abort gay children or straight children because you can't abort that which is born. Can't have it both ways...which is it?
More accurately it is inherently discriminatory against gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. However, sexual orientation is not a suspect classification so if the discriminaton passes the 'rational basis test' then it is quite ok under the equal protection clause.
We do abort gay children, and straight children to. Glad to see you conceed that fetus's are children. Or did you slip up?
"quaint"? Oh that's not unique. I even quoted the 'quaint' Constitution. (I know, HOW SHOCKING). You asked to to show you where any notion of equal protection was excluded, I replied and then replied to your legally incoherent assertion that 'not being exluded means included'. Need I repeat my key points, or don't you have any substantive objections other than sneering? Till then...
Let's begin with the 14th amendment operative phrase (and the meaning) under dispute: "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " First, note that it does not say WHAT it protects a person from... "the equal protection of the laws" does not specify a group or race, only that persons are protected under the law from something undefined. We have only two choices: we could, of course, freely speculate on what persons are equally...
Sure it is - that which is included and not included is by definition discriminating. So yes of course it is discriminatory, discrimination occurs all the time in the law - many students are excluded from public universities because of grades or test scores; others are excluded from public employment for lack of qualifications; only some businesses are subsidized by law; some persons have to pay higher taxes, commercial pilots cannot fly beyond 60, women cannot serve as...
Yes marriage is a civil right - the right being that any opposite gendered people have a right to join in matrimony. It's a right as old as civilization, and a part of English and American common law (as well as written law). Any person in the US, of age, may do it. You are wrong there. Equal protection, for most of its history, was used for race/ethnic based cases. Up until the 1960s only one case (in 1942) was an exception, and that established marriage/procreation as a...
Being more forgiving of the Judges taking advantage of bad case law does not make his opinion any more valid. Two recent cases, Romer v. Evans (1996) and then Lawrence v. Texas (2002) opened the door for Walker's finding and made it easier for him to walk through. Of course the 14th amendment should not be repealed, it should be enforced as it was intended - not fodder for more silly and stupid rulings by jurists who want to create their own public policy. Equal protection...
I initially found the Judges opinion outrageous. However, after some thinking and reading I have to be a bit more forgiving. While he was partisan, and determined to find Prop 8 unconstitutional I also suspect the defense was pathetic. And given recent case law, his logic might be more compelling than I'd like. It seems that a judge now has the right to declare any law based on "morality" to be unconstitutional. It has to be "rational", whatever that means. Of...
I've offered commonly known facts and events, the kind of thing one reads in Newsweek or Time. if you are unaware of one of them I'd be happy to find a link. The "Haliburton" conspiracy is not exactly mainstream nor academic. And I tend to doubt that the inspectors present said there was nothing to find, or perhaps you don't recall that Hans Blitz told the UN that he needed more time to continue the inspections? Moreover inspections had already shown their dubiousness...
New Posts  All Forums: