In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 29 Oct 2004 10:19:36 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

One of the problems with this debate is the absolute certainty on the part
of each side that no other position is morally defensible. As I've suggested
before, when there is such a gulf in beliefs, the best course is for the law
to stay out of the decision process, leaving such matters to other controls
such as individual conscience, the socialization process and religious
beliefs. People have come to ignore these non-legal restraints and insist
that their own views in such matters must in all cases be enforced by the
power of the state. Society is the poorer for it.

I would agree except that the states have a poor history of doing what
you suggest. Therefore, Federal action is required.

Again I ask, Jon--you think the State legislators will ignore their
constituents if, as you say, and vast majority favor your position? I don't
think so. And if they do, the remedy is to replace them.

Could it be that you have doubts about whether that vast majority is such a
vast majority?

More fundamentally, I think it's short-sighted, and a serious mistake, to
base Constitutional principle solely on whether it yields your desired
result in a particular case.

So, you would advocate the repeal of all civil rights legislation that
has taken place at the Federal level in favor of the legislation being
put to the individual states? Talk about short-sighted!!

From your last paragraph, should we infer that the Bill of Rights
should also be eliminated, since it was designed to specifically
address a desired result?

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."