View Single Post
  #95   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Urin Asshole Urin Asshole is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 968
Default Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:42:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:11:32 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM,
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM,
wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.


I agree but the same thing happened with interracial marriages. Some
states allowed it some didn't. Eventually, that changed. Change should
be slow if possible.


So we should go slow on gay marriage? I am trying to understand where
you are going with this.


I think that's the way things work at least at the SCOTUS way of
thinking.

I imagine polygamy will be next. If we are truly going to embrace the
GBLT community we can't ignore the "B"s
Bisexuals should be able to have one each shouldn't they?


I have no objection, but just because you "imagine" doesn't make it
likely.