- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,589
- Reaction score
- 27,966
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You mean driving?
Oh lordie lordie :roll: Driving then... :lol:
You mean driving?
Prove it.
I prefer legal and historical texts, but thanks anyway.
You did not answer Ethereal's question.Take a conlaw course. Of just pick up "Equal Protection for dummies", its available at most major bookstores or amazon.com
Oh lordie lordie :roll: Driving then... :lol:
You did not answer Ethereal's question.
Incidentally, what is the ISBN # of "Equal Protection for dummies"?
Such civil unions could be open to anyone, just like driving is.
I'm hoping you can rip it to sheds in a civil and intelligent way so that I can put you on the list for a new social group for higher debate :2wave:
"Seperate, but equal" anyone?
Such civil unions could be open to anyone, just like driving is.
It would be my pleasure.
First, your SCOTUS reference will be summarily dismissed unless you want to discuss the merits of Roe v Wade and abortion. I trust you're intelligent enough to extrapolate my meaning.
Secondly, and more importantly, a positive obligation is not a right. I am under no obligation to legitimize your lifestyle choices, nor am I obligated to confer special privileges upon you because of those lifestyle choices. If you wish to enter into a legal agreement with another person that is your right, but do not presume to oblige my participation via government proxy.
"Seperate, but equal" anyone?
And "Marriages" too?
That's what I've been saying... it is obviously a civil rights issue.
Marriages already are.
Only if you think driving is a civil rights issue.
Only if you think driving is a civil rights issue.
You still didn't answer Ethereal's question. You can use more than four words; I am reasonably certain Ethereal won't hold it against you.Sorry. I know you guys like your edumacation to be basic. But Constitutional Law is a college level course that requires more that I can post in a 4 word sentence.
I don't have the info for you. Just google or go to Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more
You still didn't answer Ethereal's question. You can use more than four words; I am reasonably certain Ethereal won't hold it against you.
As for my question.....you used considerably more than four words just to say you did not know the answer.
Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only asians are allowed to drink or only heterosexuals can drink.
Absolutely
Take a conlaw course.
Of just pick up "Equal Protection for dummies", its available at most major bookstores or amazon.com.
Substitute "people over 21" for "asians" and "heterosexuals" in the above sentence:
"Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only people over 21 are allowed to drink or only people over 21 can drink."
So the drinking age is now a civil rights issue.....
(from GLADD to MADD)
Then why are we required to legitimize YOUR lifestyle choice via a governmental proxy?
I don't believe you should be. The government has no business legitimizing the institution of marriage.
I provided the link. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through it as well?
Just take your mouse and move the arrow over the underlined part. Now double click.