Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not arguing that it is illegal to argue on this behalf, or that it would cause laws to be struck down. I'm arguing it's contrary to American principles.

Imran's arguing for a much stricter standard than what is actually found in the constitution. The constitution does provide for laws that have different effects on different religions - in fact it would be impossible for any law to have a strictly equal standard on all religions because they do not believe in the same things. Laws that specifically target one faith (ie, Obamacare), fall afoul of it, because of their infringement on the free exercise clause. Should Obamacare permit an opt out clause - it would be constitutional, even if it imposed a greater burden on Catholics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, it doesn't the Establishment Clause prevents the establishment of a state church on par with the Church of England.

Then go tell SCOTUS they got it wrong, counselor.

[kentonio]

nm

[Ben Kenobi]

How do they compare with those who have a married mother and mother, or father and father?

I believe that's your job. On average families with a married mother and father do better than all the other arrangements. So there is a compelling interest in the state to promote these relationships over others via marriage.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, then you'll have to come with secular evidence confirming this to be the case.

No, you don't. The secular justification is needed for the original law prohibiting certain acts or mandating certain acts. One does not need a secular basis for repealing such laws when they do not have a secular justification in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then go tell SCOTUS they got it wrong, counselor.

Where? That is what SCOTUS has ruled...

[PLATO]

Family law makes my eyes glaze over

QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

No, you don't. The secular justification is needed for the original law prohibiting certain acts or mandating certain acts. One does not need a secular basis for repealing such laws when they do not have a secular justification in the first place.

Exactly. Last I checked, boyo - gay marriage is adding a law not taking one away. Your job is to convince the religionistas like me that there is sufficient evidence to procure the change.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then there's not much point to secular argumentation in the face of faith that Gay marriage is good.

If secular folks wish for engagement on secular lines, then they have to be willing to concede the point on secular lines.

What faith? I don't know or care whether gay marriage is good or not. It doesn't affect me one bit. The issue is that you need a proper secular basis for prohibition in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

More likely than a single parent. Please provide a comprehensive study on how children fare when raised by married gay couples and families with more than two married parents.

It's your law that you want to have changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

The issue is that you need a proper secular basis for prohibition in the first place

Not according to the great MtG.

The great MtG just stated that in order to change the law you have to have a secular basis for it. Not just proclaiming the faith that gay marriage is good.

What benefit does the state derive from it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Exactly. Last I checked, boyo - gay marriage is adding a law not taking one away. Your job is to convince the religionistas like me that there is sufficient evidence to procure the change.

No, I don't give a flying **** about zealots. You repeal or modify existing laws, in all cases, by "adding new laws." It's done all the time. Subtraction by addition. It took "adding a law" to repeal anti-miscegenation statutes.

[PLATO]

Where? That is what SCOTUS has ruled...

I give up. There is no hope.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I don't give a flying **** about zealots. You repeal or modify existing laws, in all cases, by "adding new laws." It's done all the time. Subtraction by addition. It took "adding a law" to repeal anti-miscegenation statutes.

Suit yourself. I guess there's no secular justification for the implementation of this new law. Sad.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not according to the great MtG.

The great MtG just stated that in order to change the law you have to have a secular basis for it. Not just proclaiming the faith that gay marriage is good.

What benefit does the state derive from it?

You greasy little ********er, have the integrity for once to take ownership of your word games and not attribute them to others.