Looks like for now, there wont be any constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. I was surprised and glad to see that some Republican senators voted to kill it.
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
I have to say, I am happily suprised by this.
This is a decent step forward.
nnioR~
quote:
diadem's fortune cookie read:
seperation of chruch and state? who came up with that stupid notion!
In the way people around here like to claim? No one.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about dark elf butts:
In the way people around here like to claim? No one.
Legislating morality is wrong no matter how you slice it. And no, homosexual marriage is not akin to other things based upon 'morals' such as murder
quote:
Kegwen's little brother wrote this stupid shit:
Legislating morality is wrong no matter how you slice it. And no, homosexual marriage is not akin to other things based upon 'morals' such as murder
Reminds me of a quote from bash.
"If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?"
It applies well in most (MOST. NOT ALL.) cases.
quote:
Azizzaing:
In the way people around here like to claim? No one.
Nobody ever promised anyone the right to a fair trial, either. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-14-2004 at 08:39 PM.
Mr. Gainsborough fucked around with this message on 07-14-2004 at 09:02 PM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Pirotess:
Nobody ever promised anyone the right to a fair trial, either.
You mean except the founding fathers through the constitution?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Azizza!
Oh I would also like to chime in that I do oppose an Amendment banning Gay marriage. I feel the constitution is for much more important matters. I would also oppose an amendment allowing Gay marriages. To me either is the constitutional equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
From what I can tell there would be no need for an amendment on the For side, being that it's already covered indirectly under some of the more general stuff.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Azizza booooze lime pole over bench lick:
You mean except the founding fathers through the constitution?
The right to a fair trial is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, just like separation of church and state is not.
It IS implied in the constitution, just like separation of church and state is implied in the first amendment.
The sixth amendment:
quote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
"Right to a fair trial" is found nowhere in this passage, but is guaranteed by it none the less.
The first amendment
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
"Separation of church and state" is found nowhere in this passage, but is guaranteed by it none the less. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-15-2004 at 03:08 AM.
quote:
From FindLaw.com:
''The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'''
Pvednes fucked around with this message on 07-15-2004 at 03:47 AM.
And Maradon. It is a much further stretch to say that the 5th Amendment does not guarantee a fair trail than it is to say that the 1st amendment erects a wall of separation between the church and state.
quote:
x--AzizzaO-('-'Q) :
YOu all do realize that especially early on, the Constitution and especially the BIll or Rights, had no impact on state law.
So now you're suggesting that it's OK to violate the constitution so long as it's at the state level?
If any state passes an unconstitutional law and attempts to try someone for violating it, the supreme court will shut it down anyways.
quote:
And Maradon. It is a much further stretch to say that the 5th Amendment does not guarantee a fair trail than it is to say that the 1st amendment erects a wall of separation between the church and state.
No, not really.
Any integration of church and state would directly violate that statement.
