I repeat: there is <no> precedent in Anglo-American jurisprudence, in the United States Constitution, nor the Minnesota Constitution, nor it's laws, that sustains a view to same sex marriage. None.
WM: So what? Until it was written, there was no document in history, Anglo-American or otherwise that stepped away, in part, from the constraints of other cultures, other places. The sheer breadth of the document was unprecedented.
I don't have much patience with the argument that there is no precedent. We'd all still be hunter gatherers without fire or the wheel, if we had, with religious zealotry, stuck to the argument that, never having been done before, X thing should never be done.
WizardMarks, Central ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
