|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 293 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 279 of 293:
| 
Dec 21 19:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 280 of 293:
|
Dec 21 20:13 UTC 2003 |
Re 276: How can you tell? I'm not willing to give them the information they
asked for, so I won't be polled.
|
remmers
|
|
response 281 of 293:
|
Dec 21 21:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #278: Right, that kind of thing doesn't belong in the Constitution.
A few years ago I was asked by a couple of lesbian friends of mine to
sign a petition to add a "right of gays to marry" amendment to the
Constitution. Although I support the concept of gay marriage, I
refused to sign, on the same grounds that I would oppose an
amendment forbidding such a right.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 282 of 293:
|
Dec 22 00:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #280: If I find the link again, I'll post it, but someone was watching
their poll and noticed the total number of votes going down over
hours, with greater reductions in the votes for the "yes, gays
should be allowed to marry" and "okay, as long as they call it
something other than pweshious marriage" answers.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 283 of 293:
|
Dec 22 01:35 UTC 2003 |
That's good enough. Thanks, Joe.
|
gull
|
|
response 284 of 293:
|
Dec 22 16:38 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:267: I think this is a problem with fundamentalism in general.
Re resp:278: As a friend of mine put it, this is an "oops, we
accidentally gave too many rights to a minority" amendment. I think
putting such a thing in the Constitution is distasteful. There aren't
any current Amendments that *take rights away*.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 285 of 293:
|
Dec 22 17:35 UTC 2003 |
re #284:
> There aren't any current Amendments that *take rights away*.
Not currently, no. But of course the reason you needed to add
that qualification is because of Prohibition, which should serve
as a reminder to all of us that even the substantial barriers
we have in place are no guarantee that poorly thought-out
amendments won't make it into the Constitution.
|
jp2
|
|
response 286 of 293:
|
Dec 22 18:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 287 of 293:
|
Dec 22 20:10 UTC 2003 |
I sure hope that if we do end up with an ammendment prohibiting gay marriage,
that we do not end up with organized crime smuggling in homosexuals from
across the border...
|
twenex
|
|
response 288 of 293:
|
Dec 22 20:26 UTC 2003 |
I hope if the US ends up with an amendment banning bigotry and general
right-wing stupidity they don't end up smuggling Tories from Canada.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 289 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:01 UTC 2003 |
Watch me make bru's head spin..
re #287: that's right! with benefits costs so much lower
(because they're not allowed to have legally-recognized spouses
or in many places to adopt children) employers will have a strong
incentive to employ lower-cost homosexual workers and as a believer
in unregulated market forces, you'll have to support their decision!
|
twenex
|
|
response 290 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:06 UTC 2003 |
Heh. Wondrous.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 291 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:09 UTC 2003 |
(I'd think you'd _want_ to get rid of some Tories, twenex. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 292 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:14 UTC 2003 |
I don't live inthe US or Canada, joe.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 293 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:30 UTC 2003 |
(I know.)
|