diamond
ONE love, blood, life
yet you Mormons somehow found the gumption to beg to be taken seriously as a religion.
testy testy.
5th largest religion in USA.
<>
yet you Mormons somehow found the gumption to beg to be taken seriously as a religion.
when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?
when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?
What was the problem with racially segregated drinking fountains?
testy testy.
5th largest religion in USA.
<>
Irrelevant.when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?
i dunno google it
6.5 million?
<>
Again, that's not the question. Here's the question:
there are *way* more homos out there.
is homosexuality a religion?
<>
testy testy.
5th largest religion in USA.
<>
doesn't relate to the subject.
race, creed and religion are protected under the constitution--that's why there is no longer segregation.
sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.
<>
Because you don't see (or won't acknowledge) that it relates to the subject doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the discussion.
testy testy.
5th largest religion in USA.
<>
Yes, because people "acted like 3 year olds" about it. You're the one who suggested there's something unreasonable in reacting adversely to a vote which categorically denies access to a state-furnished status (not necessarily to the specific rights associated with that status). That's why I was inquiring into your reasoning as to why racially segregated drinking fountains were wrong: the right or service in question (free access to municipal water) wasn't being denied to anyone, nor in the prevailing legal opinions of the time did the Fourteenth Amendment forbid the maintenance of segregated fountains, so long as everyone had access to one.race, creed and religion are protected under the constitution--that's why there is no longer segregation.
So I guess you don't consider yourself to be Christian then.
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more
Yes, because people "acted like 3 year olds" about it. You're the one who suggested there's something unreasonable in reacting adversely to a vote which categorically denies access to a state-furnished status (not necessarily to the specific rights associated with that status). That's why I was inquiring into your reasoning as to why racially segregated drinking fountains were wrong: the right or service in question (free access to municipal water) wasn't being denied to anyone, nor in the prevailing legal opinions of the time did the Fourteenth Amendment forbid the maintenance of segregated fountains, so long as everyone had access to one.
Unless, of course, you wish to argue that segregated fountains only became wrong after the Warren Court decided (in the face of unassailable evidence that the facilities, supplies and staffing provided to black schools weren't "equal" at all) that de jure racial segregation did in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which, you'll note, says nothing about the possibility of maintaining separate (but equal) distribution of said privileges and protections on the basis of arbitrary (yet "tradition"-sanctioned) categories like race.
Is that the argument you're making? That prior to Brown there was nothing wrong at all with separate drinking fountains? Because that seems to be the argument you're making in the case of sexual discrimination: that until SCOTUS decides segregated access to the rights conferred by "marriage," on the basis of the applicants' sex (which is, precisely, the criterion--Proposition 8 wasn't proposing "only marriage between two heterosexuals..."), violates the Equal Protection Clause, then there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that segregation. It's just adrinking fountaintitle, after all; the same services are provided (well, at least in terms of CA law) no matter whichdrinking fountaintitle you're allowed access to; so what are you whining about?
again, i think gay unions are what they are and would encourage that movement to seek the same clauses/protections as married folk thru legal channels
once you're converted it's an easy religion to live.
bullying and harrasing people who don't vote your way isn't necessarily a legal channel.
<>
Nathan still hasn't answered the question yet, has he?
again, i think gay unions are what they are and would encourage that movement to seek the same clauses/protections as married folk thru legal channels
Since when is the judiciary not a legal channel?
Well, at least you're honest: marriage is more about sex-based binary relationship roles than it is about anything else, including love or plans for children.i think gay unions are what they are
Ironically, for US legal purposes it is--see the SCOTUS case Nix v. Hedden (1893). It's true that, botanically, a tomato is a fruit; however, it's also true that, botanically, no such category as "vegetables" exists--that's an arbitrary culinary classification only.i also know that a tomato is a not a vegetable...