Marriage is a civil right?
Society has no say in how marriage is defined or granted?
Comparing this to the struggle of African Americans is to cheapen their struggle tremendously.
Locally the reactionary left has compared the objection to the imposition of a new definition of marriage as fascist, racist and on the wrong side of history, iow "don't disagree with us, we know best".
The hack mayor of SF will have his 15 minutes end soon enough.
The real problem is the SC of MA imposing gay marriage on America via full faith and credit clause of the constitution, so that the people have no say in how their societies look.
Well MA, CA and most states have had their will put into law via legislation or referendums winning widely. And a tiny group has decided to stick it to us by either ignoring or breaking the law.
The left as usual is the first to disregard the voter's will when it is convenient.
As to civil union, fine. Do it under the law.
Ed
Current Events » in reply to You're right: civil disobedience is no way to point out that a law is unjust.
Those pesky voters keep getting in the way
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
