The biased Reuters coverage is here, if you're interested.
From Lisa Leff's Associated Press report:
You mean like how the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, or the lack of it, applies to all, and is therefore not discriminatory on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation? You mean like how we all have equal access to marriage licensing regardless of whether the requirement is in place or not?
The one-way "walls" and paradoxes just keep coming... rights aren't reserved for the people, states, or individuals, but rather special groups. The only way they can force us to neuter marriage is through a toxic brew of Trojan Horses, bait and switch, judicial activism, propoganda in mainstream media, redefining terms in the middle of arguments, using bad arguments they scoff at when used by others, and establishing bad precedents that they will howl in protest over when they are used by others. I don't know why they bother with the pretenses anymore. Just have President Obama issue an executive order neutering state marriage licensing nationwide. California’s "leaders" wouldn’t challenge it and would comply, and the same might happen in other states. Lawsuits would be filed, but so what? They can find judges who will go with the executive order. I mean they will do that if it comes to it; that’s clear now. At least that way, some good precedents and procedures along the way that will otherwise be trashed would still be intact.
(Fixed those last two links.)
From Lisa Leff's Associated Press report:
"We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right," Ware wrote.
You mean like how the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, or the lack of it, applies to all, and is therefore not discriminatory on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation? You mean like how we all have equal access to marriage licensing regardless of whether the requirement is in place or not?
The one-way "walls" and paradoxes just keep coming... rights aren't reserved for the people, states, or individuals, but rather special groups. The only way they can force us to neuter marriage is through a toxic brew of Trojan Horses, bait and switch, judicial activism, propoganda in mainstream media, redefining terms in the middle of arguments, using bad arguments they scoff at when used by others, and establishing bad precedents that they will howl in protest over when they are used by others. I don't know why they bother with the pretenses anymore. Just have President Obama issue an executive order neutering state marriage licensing nationwide. California’s "leaders" wouldn’t challenge it and would comply, and the same might happen in other states. Lawsuits would be filed, but so what? They can find judges who will go with the executive order. I mean they will do that if it comes to it; that’s clear now. At least that way, some good precedents and procedures along the way that will otherwise be trashed would still be intact.
(Fixed those last two links.)
0 comments,:
Post a Comment