That has nothing to do with gay marriage ...
chrysostom
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
That has nothing to do with gay marriage ...
bad judges is what they have in common
No ... any judge who would wish to ban the right of men or women to marry based on love RATHER than gender is unqualified for to make decisions.
what about a judge who would allow a mother to kill her baby
Same thing. Pro-abortion judges and Anti-homosexual/racists judges are incapable of representing the health and welfare of ALL. Both allow others to be harmed.
don't you think killing babies is much more serious than two guys living together?
What justification is there for remotely making this an either/or? Oppose abortion and oppose the state interfering with the right to contract between consenting adults without serious reason related to a compelling state interest.
I am just pointing out what bad judges have in common -
the same judges that allow two guys to marry also allow the mother to kill her baby
Yes ... though it doesn't mean I cannot advocate for the rights of BOTH. I think murder is more serious than rape and domestic violence, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I need to remain silent about the latter two.
Except that bad judges don't get appointed to the S. Ct. very often. Now sound judges can make the wrong decision, but that's another horse/color.
And you still have the first part wrong. You don't "allow" people to exercise their rights. You prevent others and bad law from interfering with that exercise absent compelling cause.
the purpose of the court and marriage is to protect the little guy - not two guys living together
detroit -
A short story
- he thought the drive was killing him so he moved his family back to detroit and soon found out the job was killing him so he started a small business which got us out of detroit before the perfect storm - now the unions are left with teachers and other government employees - what can they do for you
A short story
- he thought the drive was killing him so he moved his family back to detroit and soon found out the job was killing him so he started a small business which got us out of detroit before the perfect storm - now the unions are left with teachers and other government employees - what can they do for you
WHAT little guy? IF you are referring to children, as you know, a good portion of couples are incapable (or unwilling) of producing children so that standard does not apply.
every child was produced by a man and a woman
Agreed. Not every man and woman will produce a child. Should the unwilling or incapable be banned from marriage?
is there an easy way to determine that?
Easy doesn't qualify ... reliable does. IF one truly wishes to use child producing as the qualifier for marriage, every man and woman would need to complete an physical examination for verification. Once completed, they could either receive a chip ... or perhaps a nice tattoo that states "100% certified for child bearing by the US Government".
really? - the state wants kids and the state wants you to take care of these kids - they are the future tax payers - they have figured out that getting a man and woman together is the best way to get kids
Only if you don't understand the actual purpose of the court and are so blinkered by your own bias that you're comfortable redefining things to suit it without regard for the reality of what the law is (and isn't) and what its function is (or isn't) objectively speaking.
Because once you go that way you're just peaches and the law is really only your personal stick.
There's an easy way to evidence that as an interest of the state. You ask people under threat of perjury. You require a fertility test for a license. We don't and never have done either.
Guess why.