On 27/10/2006, at 9:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on separations of religious
establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
time...
They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.....
And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?
Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in
a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said
it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created?
How is allowing all committed couples most of the same legal
protections as offered by marriage "imposing" anything? It doesn't
change the rights of anyone else. It doesn't change the meaning of
"marriage" (which means different things to different people anyway).
JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last
questions....
'cause I'm "abortioned out".
Not, for the record, that I recall mentioning abortion....
"Many people have attributed the entrenchment of anti-abortion activism
in this country to the fact that abortion was not legalized through
democratic processes in the United States, as it was in most other
democracies. I can't help but wonder if the same thing isn't happening
here...."
...was the bit of your previous post that I bypassed 'cause I can't
be arsed opening that one up again just yet. :-)
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
