12761 pts ยท February 8, 2015
:/
Yeah, I mean people are calling for the razing of the White House and Monticello, so this is a fair comparison. Oh wait...
Probably that white people are obsessed with camping and we all play water polo. Not offensive at all to me, just kind of hilarious
As a proud gay man who is really excited about SSM, I appreciate the idea, but don't much care for this type of slacktivism
*Belchhhhh*
100%. But I don't have to care or listen or respect the view. Just like I don't for creationists, flat taxers, et al.
Maybe. Colbert hails from South Carolina
Tolerance doesn't require that all viewpoints be given equal credence. We heard what they had to say. They lost
And more recently it was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a federal court in Utah, I believe. But I don't know, you'd have to read the cases
Satanist/pagan are super interesting hypotheticals but haven't been litigated. Mormon polygamy bans WERE constitutional about 100 years ago
And even if that animus was 100% derived from religion, even Christianity, so long as there was a plausible rational basis, it was legal
(except during oral debate but even that was kind of not accepted by the Supreme Court). It was struck down because of animus
To wit -- gay marriage DID NOT violate our separation of church and state! Read the opinion. Because the drafters cleverly avoided such
omitting the Allah and sin stuff, it would pass and probably be constitutional. So too with our mostly Christian legislature
ional. But if a bunch of guys, most of whom were Muslim, and thought that way because of their religion, got together to pass the above law
If a Muslim wanted to pass a law that said "The Quran says pork is bad. We shall ban it and punish the sinners." That law would be unconstit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States looks like 21, though prosecution is rare
Where you're getting your information from, but you seem a bit confused about constitutional law
In some states, it is illegal. States don't make criminal law by popular vote, and all laws must comport with the Constitution. Not sure
You're confusing a normative argument with a constitutional one. I am only making the latter
Bigamy and adultery. Some anti-sodomy provisions that survived Lawrence v. TX.
Deterring drinking. Fewer DUIs. A restful populace. It could be done on a Tuesday, but the constitutional analysis doesn't get to that point
First of all -- not my Bible :) Second -- see below. I don't disagree with you but I think people misinterpret me (or the clause)
Don't get me wrong: I think religion *should not* be the primary basis of any law. But this post misunderstands separation of church & state
Plus something that has religious bases (like liquor stores being closed on Sundays) can have non-religious purposes
I assumed the rationale. But many of our laws have Biblical bases. That doesn't make them religious. The bible has secular ideas too
As a gay agnostic lawyer: I fully disagree
I did this EXACT thing at least 4x
Or to attract animals :/
Genocide has more than one definition! (at least by int'l standards)
Yeah, I mean people are calling for the razing of the White House and Monticello, so this is a fair comparison. Oh wait...
Probably that white people are obsessed with camping and we all play water polo. Not offensive at all to me, just kind of hilarious
As a proud gay man who is really excited about SSM, I appreciate the idea, but don't much care for this type of slacktivism
*Belchhhhh*
100%. But I don't have to care or listen or respect the view. Just like I don't for creationists, flat taxers, et al.
Maybe. Colbert hails from South Carolina
Tolerance doesn't require that all viewpoints be given equal credence. We heard what they had to say. They lost
And more recently it was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a federal court in Utah, I believe. But I don't know, you'd have to read the cases
Satanist/pagan are super interesting hypotheticals but haven't been litigated. Mormon polygamy bans WERE constitutional about 100 years ago
And even if that animus was 100% derived from religion, even Christianity, so long as there was a plausible rational basis, it was legal
(except during oral debate but even that was kind of not accepted by the Supreme Court). It was struck down because of animus
To wit -- gay marriage DID NOT violate our separation of church and state! Read the opinion. Because the drafters cleverly avoided such
omitting the Allah and sin stuff, it would pass and probably be constitutional. So too with our mostly Christian legislature
ional. But if a bunch of guys, most of whom were Muslim, and thought that way because of their religion, got together to pass the above law
If a Muslim wanted to pass a law that said "The Quran says pork is bad. We shall ban it and punish the sinners." That law would be unconstit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States looks like 21, though prosecution is rare
Where you're getting your information from, but you seem a bit confused about constitutional law
In some states, it is illegal. States don't make criminal law by popular vote, and all laws must comport with the Constitution. Not sure
You're confusing a normative argument with a constitutional one. I am only making the latter
Bigamy and adultery. Some anti-sodomy provisions that survived Lawrence v. TX.
Deterring drinking. Fewer DUIs. A restful populace. It could be done on a Tuesday, but the constitutional analysis doesn't get to that point
First of all -- not my Bible :) Second -- see below. I don't disagree with you but I think people misinterpret me (or the clause)
Don't get me wrong: I think religion *should not* be the primary basis of any law. But this post misunderstands separation of church & state
Plus something that has religious bases (like liquor stores being closed on Sundays) can have non-religious purposes
I assumed the rationale. But many of our laws have Biblical bases. That doesn't make them religious. The bible has secular ideas too
As a gay agnostic lawyer: I fully disagree
I did this EXACT thing at least 4x
Or to attract animals :/
Genocide has more than one definition! (at least by int'l standards)