I still disagree with you. Every citizen of the United States should be able to enjoy whatever "benefits" the State grants to "married persons". This is absolutely an equal protection issue.
Again, I think the better way to solve this problem is to remove all State granted benefits from "marriage". I would not at all be opposed to the US Supreme Court agreeing with me.
The Patriot Act is definitely unconstitutional. The DMCA is a bad law that is not directly proscribed by the Constitution (although this would be a better law to argue your Supremacy Clause point with).
You and I disagree about the Constitutionality of refusing to "marry" homosexuals.
I advocate a Solomonic approach. I say we take away all State interest in marriage. Wanna get married? Talk to your spiritual counselor. Get the State out of it.
Well, if there's a law on the books, your beef is with the legislature, not with that school official. I happen to agree with you that that law is an unjust one (and arguably unconstitutional), but the school administrator was doing the thing he needed to do.
Fight the law in the legislature. That's what it's for.
An atheist conservative with family values? Nonsense. There is no such animal in the Binary Orthodox Political Dogma of America. Please commit suicide so you stop confusing the electorate.
But you argue that the scintists are ignoring one avenue of research. I assume you're talking about researching the Hand of God in evolution. I'm telling you that the Hand of God is not subject to scientific inquiry. There is no experiment you can do to show the Hand of God. There is no way to come to the scholarly conclusion that the Hand of God did anything by studying the fossil record.
Articles of faith are not subject to rational discourse. That doesn't make them invalid, by any means. Arguing about God is like dancing about architecture. It just doesn't make any sense.
You mean Sturgeon's Law applies to/. too? Astonishing. Next thing you're going to tell me is that there are heterogenous opinions here, and I'm not replying to a post from the/. Overmind.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought an iPod. I signed no agreement. The agreement you postulate does not exist.
Uh, who exactly do I vote for to achieve this?
Why does the reason need to be legitimate? I bought the iPod, I bought the music, I should be able to do as I please.
Seriously. What do you suggest I do?
There are zero viable candidates that support voting reform. There is nobody to vote for.
I still disagree with you. Every citizen of the United States should be able to enjoy whatever "benefits" the State grants to "married persons". This is absolutely an equal protection issue.
Again, I think the better way to solve this problem is to remove all State granted benefits from "marriage". I would not at all be opposed to the US Supreme Court agreeing with me.
The Patriot Act is definitely unconstitutional. The DMCA is a bad law that is not directly proscribed by the Constitution (although this would be a better law to argue your Supremacy Clause point with).
Draw a straight line between "Lots of parties" and "lots of corruption".
Just because both happen in Mexico doesn't mean they're related.
You and I disagree about the Constitutionality of refusing to "marry" homosexuals.
I advocate a Solomonic approach. I say we take away all State interest in marriage. Wanna get married? Talk to your spiritual counselor. Get the State out of it.
Seems to me like weak political parties that must form coalitions in order to obtain power will bring that power closer to individual humans.
My chances of becoming a leader in a small, weak party are much better than my chances of becoming a leader in a large, all-powerful party.
Federal funding, well, that's another kettle of fish.
I don't know the context of your admonition of reading the news in Mexico. What am I looking for?
Well, if there's a law on the books, your beef is with the legislature, not with that school official. I happen to agree with you that that law is an unjust one (and arguably unconstitutional), but the school administrator was doing the thing he needed to do.
Fight the law in the legislature. That's what it's for.
An atheist conservative with family values? Nonsense. There is no such animal in the Binary Orthodox Political Dogma of America. Please commit suicide so you stop confusing the electorate.
If that's true, that teacher should have been on the phone to the ACLU four seconds after he walked through the door of his dwelling.
Where and when did this occur?
But you argue that the scintists are ignoring one avenue of research. I assume you're talking about researching the Hand of God in evolution. I'm telling you that the Hand of God is not subject to scientific inquiry. There is no experiment you can do to show the Hand of God. There is no way to come to the scholarly conclusion that the Hand of God did anything by studying the fossil record.
Articles of faith are not subject to rational discourse. That doesn't make them invalid, by any means. Arguing about God is like dancing about architecture. It just doesn't make any sense.
It is actually possible for me to cast my vote as I see fit. That action has nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to fly by flapping my arms.
If I can't express my values when it is time to vote, when can I express them?
It SHOULD be a state matter. It is NOT a legislative matter.
"activist judges" were invented by John Marshall, and they've been doing a pretty good job for 200 years now.
You mean Sturgeon's Law applies to /. too? Astonishing. Next thing you're going to tell me is that there are heterogenous opinions here, and I'm not replying to a post from the /. Overmind.
I don't remember where I picked up the phrase (maybe from a political quiz somewhere), but I want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare."
I don't trust you. Argue your point.
Saying that "two parties is enough" is precisely the same argument as saying "Nobody needs more than a one-megapixel camera".
Political thought and action should not be binary.
"No religion can argue with logic"
*puts tongue firmly in cheek*
Don't be silly. That's what religion is FOR.
You hang out with boring people. Stop that.
(whether you are for gay marriage or not, this is a legislative battle and should not be imposed by judicial decree)
No it's not. It's a Constitutional issue. See #14, the Equal Protection clause.
As long as the State favors one arrangement of households, those arrangements should be available to all citizens.
Me? I think the State should not favor ANY arrangement of households. That cuts this Gordian knot quite neatly.
They don't get a nickel unless somebody (like me) gets value out of the discussion and comes back (which I do).
/. their ad revenue. I read the stories that interest me, and ignore the ones I don't. What's wrong with that?
I don't begrudge
Right, because both the Democrats and the Republicans will welcome a new competitor with a big hug and a plate of cookies, huh?
Not bloody likely.
Because the system (the two-party duopoly) explicitly favors that model.
I think that model is broken, and the system that supports it is wrong.
Turn the point around.
The best-funded, best-motivated, most-grassroots third party Presidential candidate of the last 50 years got less than 20 percent of the vote.
That tells me the system is a little skewed.
Seriously, I can't get my head around this. I couldn't countenance voting for somebody I wasn't willing to follow. It would be like lying.
Doesn't matter if it's anonymous or not...I KNOW what I voted, and I am the one who has to live with the results.
That's why I hate the current tallying system so much: It does a really horrible job of modelling We the People's collective will.