Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
If I believe that gay marriage is wrong or right, that's my own moral decision, and I can choose to either participate or not in a gay marriage. However, to make it a law one way or the other is wrong, because it tells people how to live their lives when the alternative effects only those involved.
My rights end where yours begin, so to speak. Since marriage is between me and whoever I marry, why should the government have any say in who I marry.
|
So using this line of reasoning, why shouldn't we let (let's use a disturbing example) brother & sister be married? Or in other words,
'Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! '
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
...does not mean we should stop being vigilant in attempting to prevent the cooersion of the Constitution.
|
Absolutely!
And in trying to be a vigilant voter, I still feel quite annoyed with the way state amendment questions 3/4/5 were worded - the popular vote has now taken away even more of our consumer rights, under the guise that this will keep our doctors in Nevada.
