Where in the Constitution does it say anything concerning atrernative life styles?
I just expect the courts to rule on the proper interpretation of that. If that does not succeed, then a ballot measure would suffice to get it changed in our favor.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't recall granting the SCOTUS legislative authority.
And no, there is no middle ground anymore. That time is past. Now is the time to make key strikes that will cost us little but cost the opposition millions in legal fees, etc. Tire them out and exhaust their resources and will to keep fighting it.
These are government entities that you are up against. Their pocket book is limitless. I think you have to win the hearts and minds of the voter to win overall.
That was an editorial "you". I probably should have made that a little more clear. As for the personal "you", no, I have never seen you post anything that I would take great exception to. In fact, you seem to be about where I was a year ago.
We didn't create the system. But if it's going to be used against us, we have every right to use the system to fight back, also.
Gone about in the proper way, I see no reason to disagree. But, a subversion exists when you speak of law through judicial fiat IMHO.
Honestly, I think it's complex enough to deserve it's own thread. But cliff notes version is this: division politics that use religion and liberty as opposing forces, consumerism, and degradation of personal adherence to tradition.
Using your own definition here, tell me how the supposed "right to marry" is not negated as destructive to society as you define it above.
***Personally, I don't think it would necessarly be, but rather if gone about in the heavy handed way you describe, I think it would be.****
Last edited by wbreese91; 12-16-09 at 03:51 PM. Reason: punctuation error
“Justitia suum cuique distribuit” Justice renders to every one his due
I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?