And this is why you should always read my journal - part 1 of 2melvin_udallFebruary 10 2010, 19:47:32 UTC
Meant to get tot his earlier.
Hmm not much incentive to pay. Correct.
- Either the President and his writer thought is was ok to mingle the ideas and titles of the documents together for effect, or they were lazy. In either case it is insulting. Yes. Most especially from a supposed constitutional law professor. It is more circumstantial evidence that he was an affirmative action professor, who doesn't actually know squat about the law, let alone the Constitution.
here are many solid examples of media bias, a few you have later They abound.
that do not rely on negative proof. Dumb.
That said, I don't know how schools today can keep their Journalism department's separate from their Drama schools. That was hilarious. I am absolutely stealing that line.
*Some missed marks *Double standard *You are completely and totally in error.
It does not regulate the morality of the union outside that See below.
, and hasn't for some time. That link was meaningless.
giving someone equal protection under the law Equal protection is a disingenuous or poorly considered argument. The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This can be found throughout most of the states as the default assumption of the law. (Which is why it's dishonest or just wrong to compare this to race based prohibitions) Homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, just like I am. That is equality. Homosexuals and those wrongly using the equal protection argument are actually contradicting themselves. They are arguing for extra "rights", special "rights" to marry under very specific circumstances they in particular desire. The tyranny of the minority, where the nation must adjust to some small special interest.
This leads us back to the morality argument. By changing the majority in favor of the feeelings of a minority we are in fact providing a very important moral message. That message is that the majority should bow to the desires of any minority no matter the negative impact on the rest of the populace. This is a very bad message to send.
Any law, any change in law, involves some morality.
If they want the privileges and benefits of marriage they can have civil unions. That they are not satisfied with that proves they are pushing their own morality in several ways. Intelligent people should see that.
I happen to believe gays are being used as tools of the progressives. Progressives must destroy the institutions of marriage and family. Backing the "gay rights" argument accomplishes this task.
The real question is this? Why is the state in the business of marriage? Ah, but if that's the real question, then it's the only argument that should be made. People arguing that marriage should be a purely private contract have an argument. People making that argument while in any way involved in being pro gay "marriage" are disingenuous or contradictory.
Hmm not much incentive to pay.
Correct.
- Either the President and his writer thought is was ok to mingle the ideas and titles of the documents together for effect, or they were lazy. In either case it is insulting.
Yes. Most especially from a supposed constitutional law professor. It is more circumstantial evidence that he was an affirmative action professor, who doesn't actually know squat about the law, let alone the Constitution.
here are many solid examples of media bias, a few you have later
They abound.
that do not rely on negative proof.
Dumb.
That said, I don't know how schools today can keep their Journalism department's separate from their Drama schools.
That was hilarious. I am absolutely stealing that line.
*Some missed marks
*Double standard
*You are completely and totally in error.
It does not regulate the morality of the union outside that
See below.
, and hasn't for some time.
That link was meaningless.
giving someone equal protection under the law
Equal protection is a disingenuous or poorly considered argument. The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This can be found throughout most of the states as the default assumption of the law. (Which is why it's dishonest or just wrong to compare this to race based prohibitions) Homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, just like I am. That is equality. Homosexuals and those wrongly using the equal protection argument are actually contradicting themselves. They are arguing for extra "rights", special "rights" to marry under very specific circumstances they in particular desire. The tyranny of the minority, where the nation must adjust to some small special interest.
This leads us back to the morality argument. By changing the majority in favor of the feeelings of a minority we are in fact providing a very important moral message. That message is that the majority should bow to the desires of any minority no matter the negative impact on the rest of the populace. This is a very bad message to send.
Any law, any change in law, involves some morality.
If they want the privileges and benefits of marriage they can have civil unions. That they are not satisfied with that proves they are pushing their own morality in several ways. Intelligent people should see that.
I happen to believe gays are being used as tools of the progressives. Progressives must destroy the institutions of marriage and family. Backing the "gay rights" argument accomplishes this task.
The real question is this? Why is the state in the business of marriage?
Ah, but if that's the real question, then it's the only argument that should be made. People arguing that marriage should be a purely private contract have an argument. People making that argument while in any way involved in being pro gay "marriage" are disingenuous or contradictory.
Reply
Leave a comment