Re: Why We Need the
| Posted On: 03/21/07 06:57:22 PM |
Age 31, ON |
Even if Mr. DeWeese's position is correct that "Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues," then surely he must acknowledge that there are churches and synagogues that do perform same-sex marriages. By his own logic then governments can and must recognize same-sex marriages because in doing so, they are simply recognizing that there are civil institutions that perform them.
|
why you're wrong
| Posted On: 03/20/07 03:55:14 PM |
Age 19, VA |
cant do it: separation of powers. Congress can't step on the judiciary like that. Also, the judiciary interprets the laws. If this is passed, they'll just interpret it as being completely worthless, or declare it unconstitutional. Also, legal president. No court in existence or in history has recognized the 10th amendment as legally binding in any way. A simple bill wont overthrow 200+ years of president. You'd need some form of christian revolution for that.
|
Re: Why We Need the
| Posted On: 03/19/07 11:13:44 PM |
Age 30, MO |
Ok, so you don't like the rule of law. You have contempt for the legal system and you want to be able to impose your morals on, well, everybody. I'm sorry, but this "activist judge" nonsense gets my sheep in a boxcar (to coin a meaningless phrase). I mean, we know what you want. You want your OWN activist judges making decisions which double as religious fiats. Nothing would make you happier than to have YOUR activist judges on the bench. Am I right? Please, tell me how, when a social conservative a la Scalito gets on the bench he is not an activist judge? And this selective stipping of judge's authority? Oh, it's sickening. Positively sickening. You make me so mad and depressed. hj hjhop.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
