Wouldn’t the Civil Rights Amendment prevent that?
That is just about the most intolerant thing I’ve seen here yet.
So all who disagree with you are monsters?
Maybe you could work to get them arrested or the death penalty maybe.
TDN: Is that for real? I’d start calling her Ms. Garrison.
Please learn the difference between “disagree” and “mourn” before continuing. Thank you.
Which amendment is that? Did you mean Civil Rights Act? There’s a significant difference between and act of Congress and a Constituational Amendment.
“Activist judges” is just the latest euphemism for “a judicial decision not in my favor.” I’ll bet it’s on that list of Republican attack-words Newt Gingrich drafted in the early '90s…
Anyone who objects to the happiness of others is a monster, yes. Anyone who would say they mourn the fair and just treatment of others is a monster, yes.
You are not a monster because you disagree, but because of what you disagree about.
I am surprised to hear all of this whining from conservatives about activist judges, though… who knew they were all Gore supporters. :rolleyes:
It’s not actually until the 17th, Starving, but who’s to say we can’t make a week-long party out of it anyway?
gobear, see you at the rally in front of the courthouse on the 17th.
I’ll be there. I’ll see if I can find my “Capitalist Tool” T-shirt to wear, just so nobody confuses me for (shudder) a leftist.
You’re damn right we do! I can just see it now:
Amendment XXVIII
The right to marry shall not be denied or abridged on account of the sex of the individuals involved, provided all other requirements for marriage are met.
sniff
:o Ohh beauuuuutifulllll, for spaaaaacious skiiies… :o
Wait, that’s… probably not what you meant, is it?
:: taking detailed notes ::
gobear is not a liberal. :smack: gobear is not a leftist. :smack:
Is “compassionate conservative” okay? 
I hear the People’s Republic of Cambridge will be issuing marriage licenses starting at 12:01 a.m. on the 17th, but Provincetown and Northampton plan to wait till the usual opening hour of the clerk’s office.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
:: taking detailed notes ::
gobear is not a liberal. :smack: gobear is not a leftist. :smack:
Is “compassionate conservative” okay?
[QUOTE]
I’m a libertarian who has pretty much equal contempt for the GOP, who under DeLay have turned into a pack of proto-fascists and the Democrats, who copy ideas they think will be popular from the GOP and have completely abandoned any notion of guardianship for the nation’s poor and disenfranchised.
Sounds sensible to me. Although it does leave one looking about in dismay at election time, doesn’t it? I get so tired of the lesser of two evils.
But… to be a Libertarian, must one subscribe to the ontological proof of God’s existence? :dubious:
Airman Doors, you’ve convinced me on the current argument – perhaps we do need an Amendment (and until we have an Amendment, the prudent course is to let the current state of affairs – however unfortunate – stand). It’s one of the few things that I consider worth amending the Constitution for, and it’s worth doing right. Of course, before we do that, we need to separate the definitions of “marriage” (the religious blessing of a union) from “being married” (the legal/civil state of two persons entering into partnership) under the law, but that’s a whole new argument.
However, your argument got me thinking (and here it is, only Monday!): since our legal system is based on the idea of precedence, how is a flag-burning ruling “judicial fiat”? If you’d like, we can kick off a thread in GD, since it’s a total hijack. As I see it, the various “free expression” interpretations of the First Amendment include the act of burning a flag. Iit’s possible–nay, almost certain–that this case has been tried already, and since you can still burn a flag, I’m guessing the ruling was favorable to supporters of that form of expression.
If the case was tried, and the Supreme Court found that
(a) the citizen in question was not guilty of any crime, or
(b) the statute he broke was unconstitutional,
then further cases on the subject would need their own distinct merit, wouldn’t they? For (convoluted) example, “can you burn a flag in a crowded theater, so that screaming ‘FIRE’ is a true warning?” or “can somebody be arrested for burning a flag under arson, vandalism, or public-safety statutes”?
By the way, Airman Doors: thanks for getting up every morning and putting on the blue suit. I appreciate what you do for me more than you know. Now if only I could get that “smacks forehead” smiley to sharpen up his bearing, I could toss you a “salute” smiley.
You should probably read ALL of Airman Doors’ posts in this thread before making that statement. Actually, just his first one would be sufficient to answer that question.
I’ve read your post several times and I have no idea what flag burning has to do with anything. Texas made burning a flag illegal, SCOTUS struck down the law under the First Amendment. Exactly what the Court is supposed to do, review statutes to determine if they pass constitutional muster.
The whole “illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre” thing isn’t law. It’s just an example. It’s not illegal to yell fire in a theatre that’s actually on fire. As the Court noted in Johnson, it is possible to punish people who burn flags under statutes other than a flag-burning statute.
I knew there was a reason I live in Cambridge.
does little “my city is cooler than your” dance
so you like capitalist tools… 
Sorry! Guess I misunderstood what my friends were saying. I thought they said they were getting the license today and then there was a one week wait before the ceremony could be held – like some ordinary waiting period.
Oh, well. Week long celebration it’ll be, then, capped off with what I’ll bet will be a splendid wedding party next Monday. Now, where do I buy His & His towel sets?
Just swipe a couple from the Y. 