Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/01/04 5:12 pm:
Elliot:: I don't wish him assassination! If he wins the election tomorrow, which I think will be a major victory, Bush is my President even though I voted for Kerry.
That is what's best for our country. For followers of the losing candidate to support the President elect.
*Rational* dissent is fine, that was/is the American way, of course. :):):)
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/02/04 10:18 am:
Excon,
>>>An example - Gay people have the right to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. <<<
Yes... the same rights. Not a different set of rights just for them.
Any gay person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like any straight person does. That does NOT mean that they get a new set of rules that say that they can marry people of the same sex. And activist judges that say that they do are perfect examples of judicial fiat to create a law specifically for gays that was not there before. Thanks for proving my case for me, Excon.
>>>They have always had this right, even though it’s not enumerated <<<
No. They only had the same rights straight people did... the right to marry the opposite sex. The fact that they choose not to mary people of the same sx doesn't change the fact that that is the ONLY marriage right that ANYONE has.
I'm not saying that there should be a different set of rules for gays and straights. I'm agreeing with the 14th Amendment and saying the rules should be EXACTLY the same. Marriage to the opposite sex should be perfectly legal to BOTH gays and straights.
>>>Therefore, they have the right to marry, just like you do. <<<
Yep. Any gay man can marry the woman of his choosing, just like I can.
>>>They've always had this right - even though it has not been listed anywhere, enumerated anywhere, or even discussed anywhere.<<<
Yes. Exactly. They have always had the right to marry people of the opposite sex, even though it has never been enumerated.
But the idea that a new law is being created for their benefit... the legality of "gay marriage"... is something new, and has been accomplished via judicial fiat, not through legislation or constitutional amendment. And that is where the courts are overstepping their bounds.
>>>A judge that recognizes that fact isn't making law (being "activist"), he's recognizing law that already exists.<<<
But it doesn't exist. They created this right out of whole cloth... just like the "right" to abortion waqs created out of whole cloth, and the rules regarding the prohibition of acknowledging G-d in a public venue were created out of whole cloth.
Sorry, there never was a right to gay marriage. It is brand new and has never existed before. It was created by judicial fiat.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/02/04 10:31 am:
Hello Elliot:
Yeah, we had that discussion before. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
excon
