Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>God made all of the people who commit all of the 10 deadly sins.<< What, pray tell, are the 10 Deadly Sins? I can only come up with 7 for some reason.
Originally Posted By patrickegan “Why? Why would it be legal to grant something to one class of citizens but not another?†I don’t know but why aren’t you out there with NOW championing the new equal rights amendment for women, or a bill of rights for children?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I don’t know but why aren’t you out there with NOW championing the new equal rights amendment for women, or a bill of rights for children? << I think the 14th Amendment already guarantees the same things the ERA was intended to guarantee: the euqal protection of the laws. And children are already covered by the Bill of Rights, so another one isn't necessary.
Originally Posted By barboy "Why? Why would it be legal to grant something to one class of citizens but not another?" TS, it seems to happen everywhere and every day here in the US so I don't quite understand what you mean. example: felons, those who have been conserved, under 18 year olds are not allowed to vote. Women have a right to abort irrespective of the would be father's position. There are thousands of examples. True and pure equality does not exist. BTW what i have written has nothing to do with my position on same gender marriage.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Barboy, are you really equating homosexuality with crime and immaturity? My position has always been that the law must apply equally to all regardless of race, religion or gender. Laws agaisnt homosexual marriage mean that they are not applied equally to people of different genders; members of one class can enjoy the legal protections of marriage while others cannot. That strikes at the heart of the Equal Protection clause.
Originally Posted By barboy Patrick, what is a "Bill of rights for children"? - I'll bet if there is such a movement it was popularized by some grand standing political figure trying to ride the "protect our children" wave.
Originally Posted By barboy Tom, no; I'm not equating those. I was challenging your implied assertion that it is unlawful "to grant something to one class of citizes but not another"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But how cqn you even draw a parallel between a felon and someone's gender?
Originally Posted By barboy There is a percentage of the US population that is like "Pat" from Sat. Night Live(or is she from Mad TV?)-- does this mean that an androgenous "Pat" can wed either male or female in any state? And cmp, how would the Catholic church deal with the whole sexually androgenous issue regarding marriage?
Originally Posted By patrickegan “ I'll bet if there is such a movement it was popularized by some grand standing political figure trying to ride the "protect our children" wave.†Are you implying that grandstanding for that cause (case in point what happened in Idaho) is wrong? I say grandstand away, these children are faced with living a life that has been absolutely ruined by someone who should have never been let out of prison let alone still breathing. Tell it to the Mormons
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, but what does "Tell it to the Mormons" mean in your post, patrick?
Originally Posted By patrickegan Do you support polygamy? They believe they have the God given right to have more then one wife.
Originally Posted By barboy Tom, I want you to read my post#85 in its ENTIRETY so you will understand-- I'm not equating felons to gender and you should know it. I'm saying that the state can and does routinely distinguish between classes like children under 14, those convicted of felonies, elderly, men, women, those who are under 18 or 21, those who have disabilities or those who have been conserved--the list can be very long.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Do you support polygamy? They believe they have the God given right to have more then one wife.<< Even if current laws were equally applied to all genders, polygamy would still be illegal.
Originally Posted By patrickegan This will never be anything besides special dispensation based on ones sexuality by a minority pushed on a majority that’s not buying.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I'm saying that the state can and does routinely distinguish between classes like children under 14, those convicted of felonies, elderly, men, women, those who are under 18 or 21, those who have disabilities or those who have been conserved--the list can be very long. << Minors are treated specially because of maturity issues. Felons are treated specially because they have broken the laws of society and must re-establish their status as citizens. What is the compelling national interest to prohibit two adults from enjoying the legal recognitions of marriage?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<This will never be anything besides special dispensation based on ones sexuality by a minority pushed on a majority that’s not buying.>> What are you so afraid of?
