On Apr 10, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Derek Kalweit wrote:
> Prohibiting actions which steal from other's
> freedoms(stealing/killing) is entirely different than
> endorsing/performing actions that steal from other's freedoms(married
> people getting benefits that non-married pay a dis-proportionate share
> for, i.e. taxes).
That wasn't what I was talking about. You cited the Establishment
clause, claiming that marriage should be considered a purely
religious institution. My point was that marriage pre-dates
Christianity and every other religion.
If you want to discuss the legality of tax law, that's one thing.
But the Establishment clause has nothing to do with that.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
