I heard Steorn was reviewing it.
I heard Steorn was reviewing it.
A thread complaining about how broken American politics is includes a nugget like "[I] forget who vetoes who". Wow.
We should bring back these:
While I know it's bad form to use Wikipedia as a scholarly reference, the article on the Founding Fathers does indicate that the term is a broad one, and specifically references the group that signed the Declaration as being encompassed by the term.
Additionally, I would assume that putting your signature on something that would mean your death sentence for treason against the crown means that you agree with it so wholeheartedly that you may as well have written it for yourself.
I'm not sure why there's so much vitriol coming my way. I am sincerely sorry that I, personally, am responsible for your anger at "religion".
By the way, I'm a religion major; I'm pretty sure I know a good bit about both my own religion and many others that you probably are not familiar with.
Again, friend, these aren't my words (though I do agree with them). These are the words of the people who decided that maybe it's a good thing to start a new country and this is how it should run. Please re-read the declaration of independence. Not a legally binding document, of course, but it does demonstrate what was going through the head of those to whom you owe a great debt.
Thank you for a well-reasoned, cogent response. I disagree with your definition of what a right is (as evidenced from my comments), but I do appreciate your civil comment.
Let's start at the beginning. The declaration of independence says that among our rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The 14th amendment says that a state shall not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property"....essentially their rights.
And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?
If they come from God, well, the religions practiced by virtually all people worldwide have consistently said throughout their history that such a marriage is not a marriage.
If they do not come from God, then they are simply a social construct, freely defined by humans. And the humans in many states said that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
And yet the "three great religions" practiced by the vast majority of the people who inhabit your biosphere have for their entire collective history said that this same creator says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Where do rights come from again? If you do not subscribe to any sort of God (and it sounds like you may not), then you have to say that rights are a social construct made up by people. And then you're back to square one with prop 8 and all the constitutional amendments.
The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.
The declaration of independence would seem to disagree with you: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". It's not me saying that...it's the founding fathers.
Prop 8 was of the people, as are all the constitutional amendments passed in many states explicitly defining what marriage is or isn't. Isn't that independence of the people? Who is it that's against independence now?
Indeed. It's a brave new world. By the way, did you read that book?
The credulity is strong with this one......
Wow. If I hadn't seen that, I would not have believed it. What a jerk!
This is about much more than just the filesystem. You can run a full-on AD controller now, complete with group policies, etc. It really is a drop-in replacement for most of Active Directory does.
Lots of broken sarcasm meters here apparently.....
"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye