Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

Another Republican representative lies in the gay marriage debate.She said she wouldn't wax eloquent.

Pray tell, dear lad, specifically what slander are you referring to?

Pray tell, dear lad, specifically what slander are you referring to?

Why, it's so ubiquitous he can't even find one example.I'm stunned.

Unless we're talking about throwing rice at a gay wedding, I don't see how this is on topic.

Maybe you can find a thread dedicated to "liberal commie" bashing and take it there, m'kay?

The latest Pew Poll shows that Americans are about evenly split on gay marriage (46% favor, 44% oppose, +/- 2.5% margin of error), so I don't think it's accurate to say that the overwhelming majority oppose it. But that's really irrelevant.The courts exist to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of majority opinion. One benefit of doing it through the courts is that it is not a political decision that can be undone after the next election, as happened in California.I tend to agree with you that I've seen little evidence of this silent majority of kind hearted Christians. On the other hand, the dramatic shift in public opinion regarding the matter in just the last 10 years or so suggests that maybe their hearts weren't really all that hardened either.

Not exactly a lie, but perhaps misleading.As far as I can tell, only 2 states have passed legislation allowing same sex marriage without any intervention by courts, Vermont and Washington. Other states that allow it do so only because of court rulings, or by legislation passed after a court ruling. (A number of states allow different kinds of same sex unions offering a variety of the rights accorded to married couples.) In the vast majority of states where a constitutional amendment has been put on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage it has passed. Thus, if we are talking simply about how people vote, it has been against gay marriage. But I suspect that this trend will change as societal attitudes about gay marriage change.

Except when it isn't. See Loving vs. Virginia.

So you mention a federal law, defining how the federal government recognizes marriage, to support your claim that it's a state matter. Curious.I suppose you were instead referring to that totally meaningless pandering part of the Destruction of Marriage Act where Congress purports to tell the states that they don't have to recognize marriages from other states that they don't like. That was meaningless because the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't require states to recognize acts of other states that contravene their public policy. It was also meaningless because Congress doesn't have the authority to restrict the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the first place.What's more, nothing in DOMA contradicts the fact that states are not free to enact statutes relating to marriage that are unconstitutional, which was my point when I mentioned Loving v. Virginia.

Your inability to understand that a state constitutional provision might run afoul of the federal constitution and thus be unconstitutional ironically proves the truth of your claim that "civics ain't for everyone."I guess today's your day for self pwning. Message 123

John Prentice, Guess Who's Coming to DinnerI don't think that's entirely accurate. There are some in older generations who can learn and change with the times. But there is some measure of truth in what you say.

Surely that's as much an oversimplification as Taz's point.If what you say were true there'd be no more racial discrimination in society, and I know you don't believe that.Court recognized rights are very important. They lead to societal change and acceptance. But there aren't enough courts in the world to handle all the discrimination cases that arise if society doesn't change as well.

It's a sign of maturity to admit one's mistakes. That you don't is telling.

Examples?