LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 1,323
0 members and 1,323 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 02-25-2004, 06:38 PM   #2257
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Disappointing disconnect

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


You are also engaged in monumental wishful thinking about the intentions of the hard-core social conservatives among the House Republicans who rushed to introduce this bill.

S_A_M
STP, SAM, STP.

But I wouldn't call it a rush. The amendment's text has been kicking around for a while.

Rather than debate the semantics, let me pose this challenge:

Redraft the amendment so that it accomplishes what it purportedly intended to do (by public statements). To wit: 1) Ban marriage other than between a man and a woman; 2) prohibit any state or federal court from requiring a state to offer a marriage equivalent to gay couples; 3) allow state legislatures to enact civil union laws providing the same (or similar) "incidents" of marriage to gay couples, so long as their doing so is not under compulsion of a court ruling.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 PM.