Gah! I misclicked on the edit window and now that post is just an ugly monstrosity with a few odd links that are broken.
Can a passing mod clean it up somewhat?
This was the link I was trying to add for the “Can’t forget these guys”: http://themes.belchfire.net/screenshots/[3881]star_fish640.jpg
A state constitutional amendment thatflies in the face of a guarantee in the Federal Constitution may be declared unconstitutional (i.e., in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution) by a Federal court. Interestingly, the leading case is directly connected to the deprival of rights of gays: Romer v. Evans.
Admittedly, a hypothetical Federal amendment defining marriage would be a horse of a different color. But given that one has never even passed Congress (I don’t think it’s ever even been passed in one house, but I could be wrong), I think it’s safe to postpone discussion of its effects until there actually is some such thing. Similarly the hypothetical restriction on appellate jurisdiction has never gotten a majority vote in Congress.
Now, admittedly there are a couple of justices on the present SCOTUS bench that would not buy into my analysis. That’s worth discussing.
But the other – well, it sits in that same nebulous bull-session realm as “What if sometime between now and January 19, Congress passes a law making Mr. Bush dictator for life?” They haven’t; in any sane world they aren’t going to. And the same holds, IMO, to the FMA, the restriction on appellate jurisdiction, etc.
I think some of us are worried that, while a Federal Constitution allowing gay marriage would trump state ones, that the possibility of someone proposing the opposite at the fed level would be the worst case of all.
I don’t think, given the present makeup of the court and the likely composition in the next 10 years or so, that SCOTUS overturning anti-gay-marriage amendments based on interpretation of the current Fed constitution is a slam dunk, and the worry would be if the decision goes the wrong way, all hope is lost.
But as you said, as a practical matter, neither kind of Fed amendment is likely, given the extreme measures needed to pass at that level, so maybe it’s better to NOT try to fix things that high up.
I find it interesting that the gay marriage proponents, knowing that in some states, a 50% vote is sufficient for either a constitutional change or merely a new law on the books, are saying: Why mess with passing a law which could be overturned when, for the same price, you can get an amendment that won’t be?
Your inability toi know the difference between “triangular-shaped objects” and “triangles” makes your irony blow back in your face, A tringles is a two dimensional (Wiki).
Now I understand why you favour SSM. If you can’t see the fifference between vaguely triangular shapes and the concept of a two-dimesional (therefore non physical) abstraction, it is clear to me that you will never be able to get my point on SSM.
The techincal and common use of the word “triangle” are clear to me, again polysemy is a nice, but triangular shapes are called “triangles” because they resemble the real thing, the would not be trianlges if the geometric shape did not exist
Guys, you’ve given me the perfect analogy, thanks.
Translation: I’m a stupid dick, hateful and pedantic. I lost my testicles in a farm accident several years back, and I’m taking out my sexual frustration on the gays the only way I am physically capable anymore: voting. Otherwise I would be furiously pounding away at them anally. That’d teach those homos who’s boss! I have no integrity, and no argument other than my blind hate, and unquenchable desire to be right, even when I’m wrong. So nanner-nanner-boo-boo.
Since we’re going by history now to decide how to do things today, we’d better do away with this whole democracy thing. Based on the last few thousand years of human history, it is the royalty, nobility and the wealthy who make all the decisions for everyone else. This bit about letting everyone vote, own property, go where they please and the like really has to go.
I was never talking about Montreal and/or PA. I was talking about Greece and Rome. Unless you mean that modern world leaders have different forms of marriage than the rest of us?
Number 2: No, there were no presidents in ancient Rome. I have no idea where you are getting that from. Not in any comitia, not in the senate, nowhere. There were leaders, but none with the title of president or with anything resembling the function that modern presidents have.
As to your last paragraph - EXACTLY. And in the same way, it’s “neurologically-challenged” to pick just one form of marriage - one that has not been consistent throughout history - as the definition of marriage.
Ergo, each of those three-dimensional objects has a triangle as one of its faces. You know, like how a cube isn’t a square, but it has square faces?
Your inability to understand how three-dimensional objects works is highly impressive. Here’s a clue; they’re called three-dimensional, which means, and this may come as a surprise, that they inhabit three dimensions. Two-dimensional objects, likewise, inhabit two dimensions. So it is perfectly possible for a three-dimensional object to contain a two-dimentional one. As is the case here. One face is a triangle. There’s the triangle.
#1. You really are being a hateful, childish, obtuse prick in this thread. Maybe you’re different outside of it, but it’s all I have to go off of.
#2. I’m not rational about this topic. You should’ve known that by reading my OP. I’m Ed Begley Jr. talking about big oil. I’m Richard Dawkins talking about God. I’m Reeder talking about Bush.
Since the equality of personhood is an innate characteristic of humans those system opf government which do not recognise it where wrong insofar they didn’t accept this.
I didn’t know cat’s were geometrically defined.
Please, when was the last historical period in Judaism, Christianity, Greece or Rome wher poygamy was widely accepted? For the majority. People with power are clearly a non-representative sample of any population.
I didn’t know that solid objects in the physical world were composed of 2-dimensional objects that have no height. Dice are NOT cubes, they are cube-shaped.
Go take some remedial math.
To go back to Wikipedia, a cube “is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex”. Seems to describe a dice to me. And surely, cube-shaped (as in to indicate something has the shape of a cube) means something quite different to cube-like (something which is sort of like cube in shape, but isn’t)?
Solid objects in the physical world have faces of 2-dimensional objects that have no height (or width, or depth; one of the three).
![http://themes.belchfire.net/screenshots/[3881]star_fish640.jpg](http://themes.belchfire.net/screenshots/%5B3881%5Dstar_fish640.jpg){kind=link}