Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty clear to me.
It doesn't exclude gay people (or even ugly people).
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty clear to me.
It doesn't exclude gay people (or even ugly people).
I am not interpreting the law in my posts only stating current facts of the law.
I think Christie is really FOR equal rights for everyone in New Jersey, he just doesn't want to look as if he's for gay marriage. Having a referendum effectively takes the choice out of his hands; I'm sure he knows it will be approved by the citizenry; no 'dirty' hands for him.
I am not interpreting the law in my posts only stating current facts of the law.
If it is a law, then you obviously never speak against it... it is all good and perfect. Right? But then, you spoke of the Constitution defining marriage as a right... which even you can't find anymore (not even in your own version of it). You then claim about states' rights... well, technically states are allowed to create their own laws, as long as they don't step on federal laws.
I think Christie is really FOR equal rights for everyone in New Jersey, he just doesn't want to look as if he's for gay marriage. Having a referendum effectively takes the choice out of his hands; I'm sure he knows it will be approved by the citizenry; no 'dirty' hands for him.
You could be correct in your assessment. Classic political two step.
If it is a law, then you obviously never speak against it... it is all good and perfect. Right? But then, you spoke of the Constitution defining marriage as a right... which even you can't find anymore (not even in your own version of it). You then claim about states' rights... well, technically states are allowed to create their own laws, as long as they don't step on federal laws.
Are there states that define marriage as a right?
Why do you continue to throw out the informal fallacies?
Why do you continue to throw out the informal fallacies?
Nothing that I have stated is incorrect.
You've refused to clarify your statement. May be you should.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
