On 11-5-2012 19:32, Warp wrote:
>    I'd say that there are three levels of a country not recognizing gay
> marriage, from loosest to strictest:
>
> 1) The law simply doesn't recognize gay marriage as legal. (In other words
>     gay marriage simply doesn't exist as a legal institution.)
>
> 2) Gay marriage is actually banned and explicitly illegal.
>
> 3) Gay marriage is banned at the consitutional level. In other words,
>     not just the law, but the constitution itself declares it as illegal.
>
>    The last one is the strongest form of ban, as it makes it the most
> protected ban that there can be. It's also a travesty. It's one thing
> that a country's law just doesn't recognize gay marriage, and a completely
> different thing for it to be illegal at the constitutional level. Using
> the constitution to explicitly limit people's freedom like this is an
> affront to what constitutionalism is all about. This is not what a
> constitution is for. It doesn't matter what your opinion on gay marriage
> may be, that doesn't change anything.
>
>    So guess how many state constitutions in the United States explicitly
> ban gay marriage? Just take a guess.
>
>    Answer here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
>

I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man' 
and a 'woman', hence the whole debate is void. You might as well write 
in a constitution that pi is equal to 3.

(and then I realized that this is the conventional interpretation of 1 
Kings 7:23. I spend a few entertaining minutes reading all sort of 
attempts to explain it away. But I also was reminded that there has been 
a failed attempt to put exactly this the constitution of Ohio.)


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message