Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Appeals Court Rules Against Federal Marriage Act

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #76
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    Why do you think Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 26 exist?

    And there we go.
    Sections 4,5,6,7,21 and 26 of what?



    And there we go. Texas Constitution, but it wasn't there when it was first passed.

    That's my point - Texas wasn't compelled to recognize laws against bigamy/polygamy, except through the application of federal laws.
    You think Texas amended its constitution in 2005 because of federal opposition to polygamy...?

    Comment

    • #77
      Sections 4,5,6,7,21 and 26 of what?
      Bill of Rights of the Texas constitution.

      4, 5, 6, 7, addresses sectarianism in Texas, and address specific peculiarities in the Mexican constitution. 21, addresses suicide - a law in Mexico at the time prevented descendents of suicides from inheriting the property. Probably a few others as well that address Santa Anna's nonsense.
      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

      Comment

      • #78
        Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
        Bill of Rights of the Texas constitution.

        4, 5, 6, 7, addresses sectarianism in Texas, and address specific peculiarities in the Mexican constitution. 21, addresses suicide - a law in Mexico at the time prevented descendents of suicides from inheriting the property. Probably a few others as well that address Santa Anna's nonsense.
        No mention of the Catholic Church in any of them. I don't see how provisions that prevent the government from favoring any religious sect could be construed as "provisions for the Catholic church". They aren't provisions for Catholics in any way that they aren't also provisions for, say, Baptists.

        Comment

        • #79
          No mention of the Catholic Church in any of them. I don't see how provisions that prevent the government from favoring any religious sect could be construed as "provisions for the Catholic church". They aren't provisions for Catholics in any way that they aren't also provisions for, say, Baptists.
          Goddamn. This is why teaching this stuff is painful.

          The Mexican constitution explicitly provided support for Catholicism. 4,5,6 and 7, in the TX bill of rights all address the support for Catholicism, by explicitly rejecting it.
          Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
          "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
          2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

          Comment

          • #80
            Similar provisions are found in all sorts of state constitutions. This has nothing to do with whether they were federal territories, or Mexican possessions.

            http://www.churchstatelaw.com/statec...ions/index.asp
            John Brown did nothing wrong.

            Comment

            • #81
              Yeah. They would have written the same thing even if Mexico had been secular.

              Comment

              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
              Working...
              X