Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
There's also a chance that somebody will successfully argue a compelling legal reason to uphold the will of the voters in 30 states to define marriage as "one man and one woman".

A compelling legal reason would have to exist first.

Who's to say it doesn't?

Do you have one?

I'm not a lawyer.

So that's a no

Posted by toddcommish on 5/21/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I would say that the will of the voters in several states constitutes a compelling legal reason.

You could say that. Doesn't make it true.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
There's also a chance that somebody will successfully argue a compelling legal reason to uphold the will of the voters in 30 states to define marriage as "one man and one woman".

A compelling legal reason would have to exist first.

Who's to say it doesn't?

Do you have one?

I'm not a lawyer.

So that's a no

It's "I'm not a lawyer".  If you want to take that as a no, I suppose that's your prerogative.  You do seem to like to interpret things as you please to make them fit into your idealistic view of the world.

You either have one or you don't, regardless of your profession (or lack of one).

If you say so.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:28:00 PM (view original):
If you say so.

See, that wasn't too hard was it?

Whatever you think.  You seem to know best.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Whatever you think.  You seem to know best.

Great, it may have taken 50 pages but we got there. Good job.

You win?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/21/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
You win?

He did!  He really made me look foolish again!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/21/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
You win?

haha not even close.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/21/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
You win?

He did!  He really made me look foolish again!!!

When will you learn?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/21/2012 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/21/2012 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/21/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
You win?

He did!  He really made me look foolish again!!!

When will you learn?

I know.  I'm such a loser for even trying.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/21/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I would say that the will of the voters in several states constitutes a compelling legal reason.

You could say that. Doesn't make it true.

You saying "doesn't make it true" doesn't mean it might not be true. 

IOW, despite your seeming zeal for liberalism, your world view does not = legal basis for anything

Posted by toddcommish on 5/21/2012 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/21/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/21/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I would say that the will of the voters in several states constitutes a compelling legal reason.

You could say that. Doesn't make it true.

You saying "doesn't make it true" doesn't mean it might not be true. 

IOW, despite your seeming zeal for liberalism, your world view does not = legal basis for anything

The will of the people is irrelevant with regard to the constitutionality of a law.  If the majority wants to take a right away from just a group (prop 8 in CA), then there has to be a reason for doing so beyond just the want to do it.

If the majority doesn't have one, then the law gets overturned in court like prop 8 did.

My liberal worldview is not a legal basis for anything.  But my opinion on this subject just happens to line up with federal appeals court ruling on prop 8.