If we take this parallel seriously, isn’t it an argument against private charity rather than public management of the wild human population? A park ranger would be reasonable to act in the welfare of bears and wolves in a controlled and state-run way. It’s dangerous to civilians to feed bears themselves.
Is it dangerous to churches to manage charity? Maybe not.
So if you’re taking ol’ Ken and his good ol’ boys on as your attorneys, does that mean that you expect to be using your gun(s) in a way that others might consider illegal? Planning on shooting up your school, plunk your retainer down with Ken. Planning on shooting the local neighbors who happen to be walking down your street? Ken’s your man.
Oklahoma is the state that just made it illegal for local jurisdictions to set their own minimum wages higher than what the state says you can earn.
Oh, yeah, right.
You’re doin’ fine, Oklahoma. :rolleyes:
And the latest entry in the “Gee, right-wing Republicans sure do spend more time thinking about gay sex than actual gay people” file:
I’m still trying to figure out how this part fits in with his one-way-garbage-truck metaphor:
Surely it’s more of a garbage train.
Yeah, the garbage truck metaphor doesn’t work for lesbians. Maybe something about the dumpster behind Red Lobster would work better? I got nothing.
Yanno, if homosexuality really were a “defect” or something, it would still be as wrong to deny them marriage as it would be to deny it to people in wheelchairs. If it were something that was simply “bad for you” like smoking or being overweight, it would be as wrong as denying marriage to smokers.
He should stick with, “its a sin!” and let the rest of us keep deciding which, of the innumerable number of your sins you’ve got on your list, we give a damn about.
Forbid butt sex? Isn’t that how we get little baby lawyers?
Surely we can create a perfect metaphor for lesbians and garbage if we put our minds to it. Maybe a really garbagey rug that you lick and get AIDS and shit? On second thought, heterosexual couples might do that as well so how dirty can it be? Perhaps like two mountains of garbage that are grinding against each other or something. Also, the mountains smell like fish if we want it to be especially hateful.
Man, writing good bigoted material is hard.
So hetero couples who enjoy a discreet bit of buggery every now and again, marriage revoked as well, right ?
That being said, I admire the candor of the legislator in question, who asks a question of medical professionals, but pre-emptively states he’ll disregard any answer other than “yes you’re right” because it’s just common sense that he’s right.
I should put that tactic to work in Great Debates.
Is there a way to determine whether Congress (mostly Issa) has spent more time investigating Benghazi than 9-11?
Is “Cracker” a proper term for Alabamanians, or does that only apply to Georgians?
How indeed.
I’m… not sure how the internal logic of this piece of crazy even works.
Like, OK, say your pet god created everyone. Didn’t he also, necessarily, create Buddhists and Muslims as well ? And as such, if the rights enumerated in the Constitution come from having been created by god, they have 'em too ?
I dunno, I guess I just don’t get it, or where “it” might even come from. I think I’m thinking about this rather more than I’m expected to, and possibly more than the Honourable Chief Justice himself.
BTW, further crazy :
[QUOTE=Crazy McInsane]
Chief Justice Moore later defined “life” via Blackstone’s Law — a book that American lawyers have “sadly forgotten” — as beginning when “the baby kicks.” “Today,” he said, “our courts say it’s not alive ’til the head comes out.”
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I’m *pretty *sure the laws of today state that you can’t end a pregnancy by the time the baby can fucking kick (unless the baby would kill you. Though possibly not via kicking). But what do I know, I’m no Chief Justice.
Hey, I remember him. He’s the guy who wanted the Ten Commandments posted in his courthouse.
He has a point. I think it would be great to execute everyone who mows his lawn on Sunday mornings. And if he also uses a leaf blower, execute unto the seventh generation.
No, that’s not nuts - it was referred to as ‘quickening’, which takes place in the second trimester and yes, the fetus does kick in utero (or so I have been told).
I have read (sorry, no links to source material) that terminating pregnancies before ‘quickening’ was generally acceptable - in part, no doubt, because of difficulties in distinguishing between a spontaneous and non-spontaneous event.
However, I am more opposed to defining life too early - before fertilization. Some state law - it’s probably listed here - did.
While they are adept at martial arts, including kicking techniques, the quickening involves the use of tiny swords.
Yes. I am aware.
But that was my point. By the time the fetus *can *kick it’s already too late to have a legal abortion in the existing framework, which generally speaking restricts electives to first trimester or very early second trimester barring weird shit going on.
I believe that would be Embarizona, where, for counting purposes, your pregnancy begins at the end of your last period. How, exactly, they would expect to enforce that is disturbing to think about (“show me your tampon receipts”).