Re: confederacy of dunces*

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Boyer (
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 11:44:08 PST

At 02:11 PM 11/27/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Equal protection only makes sense after equal consideration. Bush said in
>the debate that "God" didnt intend marraige between people of the same sex
>(or something of that sort), and thus he was against gay marraige. Bam, there
>in one sentence you have the future president negating the separation of
>church and state, right before the country, in a debate. Whatever the
>"God" intends, i dont care and believe, and it has no business being part of
>law. When there is no conscious effort to ward off such thinking,
>can creep in.

Well, since the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't even in the
constitution I don't think there is a real legal problem here. The mighty
wall of separation that is in the constitution was designed to protect the
church from the state, not the other way around. One might disagree with
those who find the phrase "homosexual marriage" an oxymoron. But to posit
that they are somehow bigoted is just too much. There is such a thing as
good discrimination. We discriminate when we choose dates and movies and
restaurants and doctors and jelly beans and salad dressings. I assume that
you meant that kind of discrimination might creep in. ;-)
With that said, if the people of a certain state want to redefine marriage
that's OK with me. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Those who
don't think God intended it to be that way can vote with their feet and leave.


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 11:52:43 PST