General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
Yes, because I would not be able to marry my partner in the US or if we move there, it would not be recognized either. Honestly if I were a dual citizen and I loved someone but I couldn't get married to them in one nation I was a citizen, I'd get married to them in the other.
But that's just me. I guess I'm strange that way. There's nothing keeping you from getting married here except your own decisions. |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
Whoa, did this thread get derailed a bit at some point...? Yep.
Why don't you stick to the program here Asher. This is about guns not gays. Why do you have to bring gays into everything? homophobic homosexual born again Christians such as yourself. Hmm. First off I'm not afraid of teh gays so why would I be a homophobe? Secondly, I'm sorry Asher, I'm not gay, I don't swing that way. Third, Catholics are born again Christians? News to me. I guess 0/3 is par for the course. If they also were as stupid as you and thought laws are only to be followed if they personally thought they were just, Laws which contradict the constitution are unjust and ought to be broken. Same as what Dr. King says. Gun free zones in universities are unconstitutional. Oh, and I happen to think Ernest is hilarious! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Why would gays want to get married in the first place if it's just a Christian religious tradition? Because it's not a Christian religious tradition. It predates Christianity and many religions have marriage, and non-religious people marry as well. God damn, you Christians sure are arrogant ignorant tw@ts. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
I don't really post much there but I might of noticed something...
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Scalia by referring to buildings, clearly means that it's ok for a school to post that you are not allowed to carry a gun into the school. Clearly the obnoxious gun free zones on campus grounds are unconstitutional. I hope someone hauls a student to courts soon over this issue, because he brought a gun on campus. If I understand you correctly, your fine with the campus buildings being "gun-free", but the outside campus not. If that was the case, won't that still make the campus still "gun-free" to the actually users, unless they put there gun somewhere outside before they go inside for class? |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
BK, this is one of those places where you are proving you are not intelligent. A person who breaks the law, by definition, cannot be law-abiding. If you abide by the law, you aren't breaking it. If you break the law, you aren't abiding by it. That freaking simple. You missed my point. She was law abiding, in that she obeyed the highest law of the land, the constitution. How can you say that she was not law abiding, when she appealed to the higher law rather then the lower law?
I accept that she broke a law, but the law has no force, because it violates a higher law. Once again, just because a person disagrees with you, doesn't make them stupid Che. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you don't believe Plessy was overturned by Brown? Does that mean Plessy is still in force today? No -- but it meant that it was still in force in 1955, as it applied to buses. The court didn't rule segregated transportation unconstitutional until 1960, in Boyton (sp?) vs. VA. History major, Ben? Really? |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
Brown bundled 5 different cases together to make one landmark ruling stating that seperate but equal did in fact violate the equal protection clause, and that it was in fact unconstitutional.
Brown bundled 5 EDUCATION cases together (Biggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe with Brown itself). False, it said that separate but equal facilities were in themselves a violation of the equal protection clause. Whereas the ruling applied specifically to schools, it was extended by the justices in an unanimous decision. While it was extended easily, they quite clearly confined Brown v. Board of Education to school segregation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=347&invol=483 We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. You may argue that this set the stage, but Warren was quite careful to keep referring to this as JUST dealing with schools. Seems to me if you know the case well enough to cite it you ought to be able to spell the darn thing. He's trying to remember the spelling off his head, you *******. And he was close: Boynton v. Virginia Since we are showing our credentials here, what are yours Rufus? Forget Rufus's, I'm a lawyer. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|