n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including esp the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality [syn: civil right]
...
If this isn't a civil rights case I don't now what is. =\\
nice part: "including the right to legal and social and economic equality"
if this isn't a question about social equality, i don't know what is...
i wonder if it will be approached this way:
in new mexico there are laws saying we have to show harm to sue or stop an action...
ie: (and this is a common example out here in the desert)...you have a home on some land and have a well to supply water...people buy land around you and want to put up lots of homes and drill wells for them...you've lived there for years and know that the underground water system will never last with that many homes drawing from it...so you go to the country to try and get the number of homes reduced so only 50, instead of 100 homes, goes up on the underground water system...you tell them that 100 homes will take away your water rights that you have had for many years... They tell you that you can not sue or stop development for something that might happen....you can only sue for something that has happened...so, if the houses are built, and wells are drilled, and then you no longer have the water drawing from your well to meet your water rights, then you can sue and have the home stop their wells....it is actually quite nasty as people have new homes and suddenly find that they aren't allowed to have water to their house except by having it delivered by truck (expensive)...
so could this be handled the same way...will the churchies have to prove harm to marriage to disallow gay marriages??
I've asked you before to define how this particular issue doesn't amout to a civil rights issue. I'm leaning towards believing it is but could be persuaded. I don't think you're that open on this particular topic.
Gay marriage, how is it not a civil rights issue?
I don't know if you are intentionally being obtuse or if this is just a result of your attempt at straw man reasoning.
You have attempted, I believe intentionally to mix up your word usage with regard to civil rights and homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a civil rights ISSUE, but that does not mean that being for or against it means you wish to deny all people their basic civil rights.
The most basic civil rights cannot be deprived by you from the government. Life, liberty, etc. However some rights are definately granted according to criteria. Debating that criteria doesn't mean you are against all civil rights.
But you seem to be intentionally attempting to label anyone who wants to debate the rights and privileges granted as being against all civil rights. This would be like those who declare any criticism of the government is not patriotic. (something I know you very much don't endorse)
If you want people to vote at 18 years old, and I want someone to be able to vote at 16 years old. You are not against civil rights. You are discussing a civil rights issue with me. We are discussing at what age the right of voting should be conferred at.
If I want fathers to be able to have the choice to parent, and you think they should be obligated merely for a 15 minute sex act. You are not against all civil rights, we are discussing a civil rights issue.
If I want people to be able to vote to define marriage as they wish, and you want the courts to define it, you nor I are against civil rights, we are discussing a civil rights issue.
The people could vote to enact homosexual marriage, and I would fully support it. However I don't want judges reading their own opinions into laws when the intent is clearly the opposite. Marriage is understood to have a definition. Changing the definition shouldn't be allowed by judicial fiat. If the people desire to change the definition or add a new word that encompasses the old definition and expands it, that is absolutely fine with me. In fact it is likely something I would even support. But I think it very dangerous when words no longer have meaning.
You have attempted, I believe intentionally to mix up your word usage with regard to civil rights and homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a civil rights ISSUE, but that does not mean that being for or against it means you wish to deny all people their basic civil rights.
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The people could vote to enact homosexual marriage, and I would fully support it. However I don't want judges reading their own opinions into laws when the intent is clearly the opposite. Marriage is understood to have a definition. Changing the definition shouldn't be allowed by judicial fiat. If the people desire to change the definition or add a new word that encompasses the old definition and expands it, that is absolutely fine with me. In fact it is likely something I would even support. But I think it very dangerous when words no longer have meaning.
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Marriage is a licensing issue. We deny plenty of people licenses because of age, current marital status, number of parties involved and yes gender. I have declared quite clearly that I fully support homosexual unions and giving those unions the FULL RIGHTS accorded with marriage.
So now you can get off your kick about rights. You can find multiple posts in multiple threads where I have stated this.
I have stated support for marriage, civil unions, and also support for temporary legal relationships that allow cohabitating couples to be more than legal strangers to each other.
I've fully stated my support for the maximum number of rights, with the minimum number of barriers possible for all parties involved. The only dispute has been what I would call the homosexual unions.
So I deny no one their rights, is that clear enough for you, Mr. Supposedly Civil Rights.
You on the otherhand have sought to deny civil rights on a number of matters, even when fraud has been used to remove rights, and you call yourself a civil rights supporter?!?
I am honest on the issue. I know homosexuals deserve the rights but that you can't always overcome history with regard to word definitions. So I grant the rights and simply call it a different word. We still talk about race issues when there is no scientific proof for race. Race is a total fiction, but historically we can't let go of it yet, so we still use it in discussion. We say people of different races are equal, when there are no races to be unequal.
That is very much my thinking about marriage and civil unions. You have intentionally tried to declare I want something unequal, to deny someone their rights, and that is just not so. I challenge you to find a single post where I said I would deny a homosexual couple a single right associated with marriage. Show me or shut up, because I have not denied anyone their rights.
and if people voted for a definition of marriage as "between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman" and leaving inter-racial marriage as civil unions only?? we wouldn't want to offend the sanctity of marriage for those separatist ... separate but equal...how about if we bring back the whites only bathrooms as long as the blacks also had equal bathrooms??
separate but equal has never and will never work...if marriage is good, it is good for all adults...if voting is good, it is good for all adults...
if you are for gay civil unions, why would you be against gay marriages?? seems petty, a word is how you define it...if, in your mind, marriage is a beautiful golden thing, strong and joyous, then that is exactly what it is and nobody can take that away...
rageous, why would we have to pass a law to give rights to people that already have those rights?
We don't. If homosexuals already have the right to be married then we don't need a referendum. Someone saying they'll accept a new law if one is made (trumptman) means exactly what I've said; it means that trumptman is denying that homosexuals have the same rights as non-homosexuals.
Allowing gay marriage only if new laws are created means you deny that homosexuals are protected under the current law. That means trumptman does not believe homosexuals are equals and should not be treated as such.
and if people voted for a definition of marriage as "between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman" and leaving inter-racial marriage as civil unions only?? we wouldn't want to offend the sanctity of marriage for those separatist ... separate but equal...how about if we bring back the whites only bathrooms as long as the blacks also had equal bathrooms??
separate but equal has never and will never work...if marriage is good, it is good for all adults...if voting is good, it is good for all adults...
if you are for gay civil unions, why would you be against gay marriages?? seems petty, a word is how you define it...if, in your mind, marriage is a beautiful golden thing, strong and joyous, then that is exactly what it is and nobody can take that away...
g
And if, and if, and if... I stated what I support. You can ponder the hypotheticals society could conjure all day if you desire.
The real issue with the seperate but equal argument in my book is that white and blacks can intermarry where as homosexual and heterosexuals obviously cannot with regard to marriage.
As for gay marriage, I've stated I'm not against gay unions. I'm not even against the majority, likely myself included voting to call those unions marriages. I just am very much against courts redefining words as they see fit.
I mean think about this gelding, there is a very famous desegregation case involving a judge and the Kansas City School District. He redefined desegretation at his own whim and the rest they say, is history.
You say it is just a word, but if one mayor, or one judge in a particular county decided that say, it is okay to double your taxes to achieve their own political aim, or force your children to possible give up scholarships, school funding, a position at their school, endure hours of bus rides, whatever to achieve their own aims.
Suppose a judge decided that prescription drug funding was unequal and ordered hospitals and emergancy rooms closed in your town to fund health funding in another community.
That is why I am a word freak.
Now if society is given a choice, a vote or other such means of deciding or even inflicting(depending upon your view) this upon themselves, that is totally fine with me. As a society, we are free to redefine concepts for ourselves.
I guess the easy means of summarizing this is a win, isn't a win without the process. If your break the process, even if you get the win, it won't matter. This is the sort of think Joshua Marshall was referring to on Talking Points Memo and I personally relate well to what he mentions.
You deny a homosexual couple the solitary right of being married. I know you'll give them civil unions, but you won't give them equality.
Is that not correct?
I'll give them equality of rights. I'll leave the society the right to call what those bundle of rights are titled.
I asked you this in another thread and I don't think I got an answer. Let me sharpen the argument here. If a mayor called a new football stadium "infrastructure" and someone opposed his view, is that opposing infrastructure? Is it opposing public facilities? Or is it arguing about what the definition of these things really should refer to and should the public be allowed to define them?
What about if a judge ordered the NFL to create an expansion team for a city to enhance its tax base or fill an empty stadium to generate revenue?
I just am very much against courts redefining words as they see fit.
But the word marriage already has many meanings that don't include a man and a woman. It can be used to describe any number of types of unions, including a man and a woman. The marriage of chocolate and peanut butter makes a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. We can find the word used, and accurately so, in many places. You're wrong to say a court is redefining anything.
The definition isn't changing unless we're going to now limit its definition. That's what the courts are apparently going to show.
rageous, why would we have to pass a law to give rights to people that already have those rights?
We don't. If homosexuals already have the right to be married then we don't need a referendum. Someone saying they'll accept a new law if one is made (trumptman) means exactly what I've said; it means that trumptman is denying that homosexuals have the same rights as non-homosexuals.
Allowing gay marriage only if new laws are created means you deny that homosexuals are protected under the current law. That means trumptman does not believe homosexuals are equals and should not be treated as such.
Actually there are many instances where the old law is clarified with a new law. Several amendments to the Constitution have done this as well.
I asked you this in another thread and I don't think I got an answer. Let me sharpen the argument here. If a mayor called a new football stadium "infrastructure" and someone opposed his view, is that opposing infrastructure? Is it opposing public facilities? Or is it arguing about what the definition of these things really should refer to and should the public be allowed to define them?
What about if a judge ordered the NFL to create an expansion team for a city to enhance its tax base or fill an empty stadium to generate revenue?
That would not in and of itself be opposing infrastructure. It would be opposing a specific kind of infrastructure.
But the word marriage already has many meanings that don't include a man and a woman. It can be used to describe any number of types of unions, including a man and a woman. The marriage of chocolate and peanut butter makes a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. We can find the word used, and accurately so, in many places. You're wrong to say a court is redefining anything.
The definition isn't changing unless we're going to now limit its definition. That's what the courts are apparently going to show.
Colloquial language is not the same as formal legal definitions. I think even you easily understand that.
You better be careful bunge. You are really going to give fuel to the "I want to marry my horse and pick up truck" crowd.
Colloquial language is not the same as formal legal definitions.
But wouldn't a court be deciding that a specific and limiting definition is unconstitutional? Isn't that the correct legal process to enact change? Yes, I believe it is. So even if there are different definitions between colloquial and legal terms, those legal terms are subject to a court's reading of the constitution.
But wouldn't a court be deciding that a specific and limiting definition is unconstitutional? Isn't that the correct legal process to enact change? Yes, I believe it is. So even if there are different definitions between colloquial and legal terms, those legal terms are subject to a court's reading of the constitution.
It's not arbitrary and capricious, it's legal.
But the point is you are trying to use colloquial language to show society has multiple legal definitions when in reality it doesn't.
The only definitions that are subject to the court's reading are legal terms. No court is going to try you for adultery because you are "Jonesing to try out your new bed." It is the most ridiculous argument I have heard you put forth.
It would be like me claiming kids should be arrested for drug use because I heard some kids say this music is "dope."
That would not in and of itself be opposing infrastructure. It would be opposing a specific kind of infrastructure.
But this is the argument you keep putting forth with homosexual unions. In fact anyone who even wished to debate it is claimed by you to oppose all civil rights and desire to deny rights to others.
So, GASP, we can discuss a specific definition, even use a different word for that disagreement and it doesn't mean we oppose rights, or even all civil rights.
I'm sure you wouldn't even call football stadiums public infrastructure. Additionally opposing it doesn't mean you "hate" infrastructure. You might even want to call these types of deal something other than public infrastructure so it isn't confused with water treatment plants, schools, roads, bridges and so forth.
If the law were clear, would we be having this debate?
The law may or may not allow homosexual unions and may or may not require them to be called marriages. Massachussetts claimed in a 4-3 vote that it not only required them to be allowed but also required them to be called marriages.
Does 4-3 sound very "clear" to you?
However after the fact Massachussetts might wish to pass yet another law or even a constitutinal amendment making that 4-3 ruling very clear and indisputable.
Please remember Dred Scott when you think about how "clear" laws are without being clarified with additional laws.
Comments
n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including esp the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality [syn: civil right]
...
If this isn't a civil rights case I don't now what is. =\\
if this isn't a question about social equality, i don't know what is...
i wonder if it will be approached this way:
in new mexico there are laws saying we have to show harm to sue or stop an action...
ie: (and this is a common example out here in the desert)...you have a home on some land and have a well to supply water...people buy land around you and want to put up lots of homes and drill wells for them...you've lived there for years and know that the underground water system will never last with that many homes drawing from it...so you go to the country to try and get the number of homes reduced so only 50, instead of 100 homes, goes up on the underground water system...you tell them that 100 homes will take away your water rights that you have had for many years... They tell you that you can not sue or stop development for something that might happen....you can only sue for something that has happened...so, if the houses are built, and wells are drilled, and then you no longer have the water drawing from your well to meet your water rights, then you can sue and have the home stop their wells....it is actually quite nasty as people have new homes and suddenly find that they aren't allowed to have water to their house except by having it delivered by truck (expensive)...
so could this be handled the same way...will the churchies have to prove harm to marriage to disallow gay marriages??
g
Originally posted by bunge
I've asked you before to define how this particular issue doesn't amout to a civil rights issue. I'm leaning towards believing it is but could be persuaded. I don't think you're that open on this particular topic.
Gay marriage, how is it not a civil rights issue?
I don't know if you are intentionally being obtuse or if this is just a result of your attempt at straw man reasoning.
You have attempted, I believe intentionally to mix up your word usage with regard to civil rights and homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a civil rights ISSUE, but that does not mean that being for or against it means you wish to deny all people their basic civil rights.
The most basic civil rights cannot be deprived by you from the government. Life, liberty, etc. However some rights are definately granted according to criteria. Debating that criteria doesn't mean you are against all civil rights.
But you seem to be intentionally attempting to label anyone who wants to debate the rights and privileges granted as being against all civil rights. This would be like those who declare any criticism of the government is not patriotic. (something I know you very much don't endorse)
If you want people to vote at 18 years old, and I want someone to be able to vote at 16 years old. You are not against civil rights. You are discussing a civil rights issue with me. We are discussing at what age the right of voting should be conferred at.
If I want fathers to be able to have the choice to parent, and you think they should be obligated merely for a 15 minute sex act. You are not against all civil rights, we are discussing a civil rights issue.
If I want people to be able to vote to define marriage as they wish, and you want the courts to define it, you nor I are against civil rights, we are discussing a civil rights issue.
The people could vote to enact homosexual marriage, and I would fully support it. However I don't want judges reading their own opinions into laws when the intent is clearly the opposite. Marriage is understood to have a definition. Changing the definition shouldn't be allowed by judicial fiat. If the people desire to change the definition or add a new word that encompasses the old definition and expands it, that is absolutely fine with me. In fact it is likely something I would even support. But I think it very dangerous when words no longer have meaning.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You have attempted, I believe intentionally to mix up your word usage with regard to civil rights and homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a civil rights ISSUE, but that does not mean that being for or against it means you wish to deny all people their basic civil rights.
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Originally posted by bunge
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Originally posted by trumptman
The people could vote to enact homosexual marriage, and I would fully support it. However I don't want judges reading their own opinions into laws when the intent is clearly the opposite. Marriage is understood to have a definition. Changing the definition shouldn't be allowed by judicial fiat. If the people desire to change the definition or add a new word that encompasses the old definition and expands it, that is absolutely fine with me. In fact it is likely something I would even support. But I think it very dangerous when words no longer have meaning.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Except that in this case you do want to deny a specific peoples some of their basic civil rights. Isn't that correct?
Marriage is a licensing issue. We deny plenty of people licenses because of age, current marital status, number of parties involved and yes gender. I have declared quite clearly that I fully support homosexual unions and giving those unions the FULL RIGHTS accorded with marriage.
So now you can get off your kick about rights. You can find multiple posts in multiple threads where I have stated this.
I have stated support for marriage, civil unions, and also support for temporary legal relationships that allow cohabitating couples to be more than legal strangers to each other.
I've fully stated my support for the maximum number of rights, with the minimum number of barriers possible for all parties involved. The only dispute has been what I would call the homosexual unions.
So I deny no one their rights, is that clear enough for you, Mr. Supposedly Civil Rights.
You on the otherhand have sought to deny civil rights on a number of matters, even when fraud has been used to remove rights, and you call yourself a civil rights supporter?!?
I am honest on the issue. I know homosexuals deserve the rights but that you can't always overcome history with regard to word definitions. So I grant the rights and simply call it a different word. We still talk about race issues when there is no scientific proof for race. Race is a total fiction, but historically we can't let go of it yet, so we still use it in discussion. We say people of different races are equal, when there are no races to be unequal.
That is very much my thinking about marriage and civil unions. You have intentionally tried to declare I want something unequal, to deny someone their rights, and that is just not so. I challenge you to find a single post where I said I would deny a homosexual couple a single right associated with marriage. Show me or shut up, because I have not denied anyone their rights.
Nick
separate but equal has never and will never work...if marriage is good, it is good for all adults...if voting is good, it is good for all adults...
if you are for gay civil unions, why would you be against gay marriages?? seems petty, a word is how you define it...if, in your mind, marriage is a beautiful golden thing, strong and joyous, then that is exactly what it is and nobody can take that away...
g
Originally posted by trumptman
I challenge you to find a single post where I said I would deny a homosexual couple a single right associated with marriage.
You deny a homosexual couple the solitary right of being married. I know you'll give them civil unions, but you won't give them equality.
Is that not correct?
We don't. If homosexuals already have the right to be married then we don't need a referendum. Someone saying they'll accept a new law if one is made (trumptman) means exactly what I've said; it means that trumptman is denying that homosexuals have the same rights as non-homosexuals.
Allowing gay marriage only if new laws are created means you deny that homosexuals are protected under the current law. That means trumptman does not believe homosexuals are equals and should not be treated as such.
Originally posted by thegelding
and if people voted for a definition of marriage as "between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman" and leaving inter-racial marriage as civil unions only?? we wouldn't want to offend the sanctity of marriage for those separatist ... separate but equal...how about if we bring back the whites only bathrooms as long as the blacks also had equal bathrooms??
separate but equal has never and will never work...if marriage is good, it is good for all adults...if voting is good, it is good for all adults...
if you are for gay civil unions, why would you be against gay marriages?? seems petty, a word is how you define it...if, in your mind, marriage is a beautiful golden thing, strong and joyous, then that is exactly what it is and nobody can take that away...
g
And if, and if, and if... I stated what I support. You can ponder the hypotheticals society could conjure all day if you desire.
The real issue with the seperate but equal argument in my book is that white and blacks can intermarry where as homosexual and heterosexuals obviously cannot with regard to marriage.
As for gay marriage, I've stated I'm not against gay unions. I'm not even against the majority, likely myself included voting to call those unions marriages. I just am very much against courts redefining words as they see fit.
I mean think about this gelding, there is a very famous desegregation case involving a judge and the Kansas City School District. He redefined desegretation at his own whim and the rest they say, is history.
You say it is just a word, but if one mayor, or one judge in a particular county decided that say, it is okay to double your taxes to achieve their own political aim, or force your children to possible give up scholarships, school funding, a position at their school, endure hours of bus rides, whatever to achieve their own aims.
Suppose a judge decided that prescription drug funding was unequal and ordered hospitals and emergancy rooms closed in your town to fund health funding in another community.
That is why I am a word freak.
Now if society is given a choice, a vote or other such means of deciding or even inflicting(depending upon your view) this upon themselves, that is totally fine with me. As a society, we are free to redefine concepts for ourselves.
I guess the easy means of summarizing this is a win, isn't a win without the process. If your break the process, even if you get the win, it won't matter. This is the sort of think Joshua Marshall was referring to on Talking Points Memo and I personally relate well to what he mentions.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
You deny a homosexual couple the solitary right of being married. I know you'll give them civil unions, but you won't give them equality.
Is that not correct?
I'll give them equality of rights. I'll leave the society the right to call what those bundle of rights are titled.
I asked you this in another thread and I don't think I got an answer. Let me sharpen the argument here. If a mayor called a new football stadium "infrastructure" and someone opposed his view, is that opposing infrastructure? Is it opposing public facilities? Or is it arguing about what the definition of these things really should refer to and should the public be allowed to define them?
What about if a judge ordered the NFL to create an expansion team for a city to enhance its tax base or fill an empty stadium to generate revenue?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I just am very much against courts redefining words as they see fit.
But the word marriage already has many meanings that don't include a man and a woman. It can be used to describe any number of types of unions, including a man and a woman. The marriage of chocolate and peanut butter makes a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. We can find the word used, and accurately so, in many places. You're wrong to say a court is redefining anything.
The definition isn't changing unless we're going to now limit its definition. That's what the courts are apparently going to show.
Originally posted by bunge
rageous, why would we have to pass a law to give rights to people that already have those rights?
We don't. If homosexuals already have the right to be married then we don't need a referendum. Someone saying they'll accept a new law if one is made (trumptman) means exactly what I've said; it means that trumptman is denying that homosexuals have the same rights as non-homosexuals.
Allowing gay marriage only if new laws are created means you deny that homosexuals are protected under the current law. That means trumptman does not believe homosexuals are equals and should not be treated as such.
Actually there are many instances where the old law is clarified with a new law. Several amendments to the Constitution have done this as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I asked you this in another thread and I don't think I got an answer. Let me sharpen the argument here. If a mayor called a new football stadium "infrastructure" and someone opposed his view, is that opposing infrastructure? Is it opposing public facilities? Or is it arguing about what the definition of these things really should refer to and should the public be allowed to define them?
What about if a judge ordered the NFL to create an expansion team for a city to enhance its tax base or fill an empty stadium to generate revenue?
That would not in and of itself be opposing infrastructure. It would be opposing a specific kind of infrastructure.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually there are many instances where the old law is clarified with a new law. Several amendments to the Constitution have done this as well.
Correct, but that doesn't negate my point.
Originally posted by bunge
But the word marriage already has many meanings that don't include a man and a woman. It can be used to describe any number of types of unions, including a man and a woman. The marriage of chocolate and peanut butter makes a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. We can find the word used, and accurately so, in many places. You're wrong to say a court is redefining anything.
The definition isn't changing unless we're going to now limit its definition. That's what the courts are apparently going to show.
Colloquial language is not the same as formal legal definitions. I think even you easily understand that.
You better be careful bunge. You are really going to give fuel to the "I want to marry my horse and pick up truck" crowd.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Colloquial language is not the same as formal legal definitions.
But wouldn't a court be deciding that a specific and limiting definition is unconstitutional? Isn't that the correct legal process to enact change? Yes, I believe it is. So even if there are different definitions between colloquial and legal terms, those legal terms are subject to a court's reading of the constitution.
It's not arbitrary and capricious, it's legal.
Originally posted by bunge
But wouldn't a court be deciding that a specific and limiting definition is unconstitutional? Isn't that the correct legal process to enact change? Yes, I believe it is. So even if there are different definitions between colloquial and legal terms, those legal terms are subject to a court's reading of the constitution.
It's not arbitrary and capricious, it's legal.
But the point is you are trying to use colloquial language to show society has multiple legal definitions when in reality it doesn't.
The only definitions that are subject to the court's reading are legal terms. No court is going to try you for adultery because you are "Jonesing to try out your new bed." It is the most ridiculous argument I have heard you put forth.
It would be like me claiming kids should be arrested for drug use because I heard some kids say this music is "dope."
Weird...
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
That would not in and of itself be opposing infrastructure. It would be opposing a specific kind of infrastructure.
But this is the argument you keep putting forth with homosexual unions. In fact anyone who even wished to debate it is claimed by you to oppose all civil rights and desire to deny rights to others.
So, GASP, we can discuss a specific definition, even use a different word for that disagreement and it doesn't mean we oppose rights, or even all civil rights.
I'm sure you wouldn't even call football stadiums public infrastructure. Additionally opposing it doesn't mean you "hate" infrastructure. You might even want to call these types of deal something other than public infrastructure so it isn't confused with water treatment plants, schools, roads, bridges and so forth.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Correct, but that doesn't negate my point.
If the law were clear, would we be having this debate?
The law may or may not allow homosexual unions and may or may not require them to be called marriages. Massachussetts claimed in a 4-3 vote that it not only required them to be allowed but also required them to be called marriages.
Does 4-3 sound very "clear" to you?
However after the fact Massachussetts might wish to pass yet another law or even a constitutinal amendment making that 4-3 ruling very clear and indisputable.
Please remember Dred Scott when you think about how "clear" laws are without being clarified with additional laws.
Nick