Emproph: “Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.”

Brennin:
1. Harvey Milk day.
2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

1. Harvey Milk day.

Being true, perfectly legitimate.

2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

TFB, it applies to gay kids—and their non-bigoted classmates—to ensure that people like you don’t lead them down a path to suicide.

Marriage as a government institution is itself unconstitutional. It violates the freedom of consenting adults to enter personal contracts as they see fit without the arbitrary blessing of others.

Marriage licenses didn’t even exist until after the Civil War, for the expressed purpose of discriminating against interracial coupling. When the Supreme Court stuck down such discrimination, they should have determined that such licenses really serve no purpose at all.

Instead we’re forced to work within the phony boundaries of state-sponsored marriage to obtain rights that out to be available to anyone, married or unmarried.

I like what the Constitution says. My Constitution does not include an asterisk that says “other than gay people”. And I don’t find a compelling need to redefine what it says into what it “meant to say” based on “the socio-historical context in which it was written.”

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t like what the Constitution says and should amend it.

Oh, wait. You tried with the FMA. And you lost.

But the fascinating thing, Brennin, in the process of unsuccessfully seeking to exclude gay Americans from Constitutional protections, by implication you admitted that the Constitution does in its language and its principles protect gay citizens.

Oooops, I bet y’all didn’t intend that, now did you?

Please read for comprehension. I wrote ‘he Constitution must be read in the socio-historical context in which it was written and _amended_…’

Slavery was repealed via the amendment process.

“And where did you get the news about gay marriage in the U.K.?”

I was referring to their civil unions and had in mind the punishment of the Bishop of Hereford.

“…interpret the Constitution as an evolving document, as opposed to a document frozen in the latter-half of the 18th century, to be understood in the socio-historical context of its time.”

If you don’t like what the Constitution actually says, then amend it. You can’t just pretend it says something you want, the codswallop of liberal judges notwithstanding.

“Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.”

1. Harvey Milk day.
2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

This should come as no surprise to anyone; the beginning of the end of Jim Crow was not the Brown decision, which was roundly ignored for years anyway. It was Truman’s integration of the Armed Forces, the fruit of considerable horse trading and accomplished with the stroke of a pen, combined with the Jackson SCs use of antitrust legislation, of all things, to strike down restrictive covenants in residential deeds.

gay rights activists push for indoctrination of children

They [anti-gays] won fair and square.
–
Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.

Children were addressed in this campaign– finally. But unfortunately, not fully. And that allowed the bigots to exploit it.

As far as I can tell, there really wasn’t much talk about religion, prejudice, and especially, religious prejudice.

Until we start doing this, we can ocntinue to lose.

And yes, I donated, even tohugh I thought it was a waste of money I don’t have right now.

So sorry to have offended you with my “moronic” opinion rife with “liberal activism” and “pettifoggery” which, in your opinion, wouldn’t withstand rational scrutiny. Jesus Christ — please don’t hold off on kindness there.

Anyway [wipes away a tear], I was actually placing my NON-LAWYERLY thoughts on Loving v. Virginia (1967). Remember — there were miscegenation statutes on the books in 15 states when Loving v. Virginia was decided. One *could* argue — in the moronic voice of liberal pettifoggery, of course — that a purpose of the Supreme Court is to (1) quash laws which are in force at the time which are violative of the Constitution and (1) interpret the Constitution as an evolving document, as opposed to a document frozen in the latter-half of the 18th century, to be understood in the socio-historical context of its time.

Signing off,

A pettifoggerical pettifaggot :-)