I want to follow the proscribed method for enacting a change to the standards of our society- following the constitution as written by the founders.
You want to revel in the changes 'interpreted' by the SCOTUS in Lawrence and the Massachusettes Supreme Court.
I want to conserve what has been for over 200 years.
You want what you always want, which is the erosion of society in the name of a sort of liberty which is really the lack of freedom for people to arrange their communities as they see fit.
When you get around to it, you still owe an answer to this:
Since the founding of the country, marriage here has been one man, one woman. Anything wrong with that?If there is a constitutional reason why it shouldn't be just that, then spell it out, and while doing explain how that same rationale could not be used to legalize polygamy, adult incest, or beastiality.
Nope, you invented that 'saying', Willy.
-- And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway.. Put your big mouth on the line. Make your accusation.
I'll make my accusation simple. You are not conservative.
Yep, that's 'simple', in the idiotic sense .
Backatcha, -- you don't honor our constitution, - as you want to change it.
Sorry tpaine, too cute by half. I want to follow the proscribed method for enacting a change to the standards of our society- following the constitution as written by the founders.
We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any..
You want to revel in the changes 'interpreted' by the SCOTUS in Lawrence and the Massachusettes Supreme Court. I want to conserve what has been for over 200 years. You want what you always want, which is the erosion of society in the name of a sort of liberty which is really the lack of freedom for people to arrange their communities as they see fit.
You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.
--Back up your bull or take your flaming BS to the backroom where it belongs.