1 - 5
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

szwillig Wrote: Dec 11, 2013 9:26 PM
Race was never a part of the classic Common Law DEFINITION of marriage, and Justice Kennedy himself has even conceded that. Learn the difference between a Definition (the core concept of a thing) and an incidental characteristic introduced after the thing has long been in existence.
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

szwillig Wrote: May 18, 2013 3:12 PM
This is a terrible argument from you. You should think a little more before you try to refute Sowell. if no distinction is drawn between persons and actions in the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause than virtually every act of a legislature can be overturned by nothing more than a personal preference on the part of a litigant. The Equal Protection Clause is not designed to allow for the overthrow of any law that does not represent a compelling interest, but any law that discriminates AGAINST INDIVIDUALS without a compelling interest...
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

szwillig Wrote: May 18, 2013 3:04 PM
Uhh...Race was was never a part of the social/cultural definition of marriage. Tell you what, I'll find a dictionary prior to the 20th century with a definition that mentions gender, and then you find me a dictionary prior to the 20th century that mentions race.
Why is the article that you posted by her co-authored by someone else? Hmmm. I've seen her in action and she got her butt kicked by ACTOR Matt Damon. I'm a Conservative and a male, but I don't like when our cause is fronted my incompetent representatives that have been taken on for rather superficial reasons. I actually think it's great when beauty and genuine brains converge in a single figure, but that ain't the deal here; and brains must come first..
In response to:

An Economic 'Plan'?

szwillig Wrote: Sep 11, 2012 2:58 AM
You are part of the problem, just a different form of it.
1 - 5