+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 9 to 10 of 10

Thread: Double Standard of the Law

  1. #9
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Double Standard of the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    Cleary, I misunderstood the concept of church/state separation, but I didn't say he doesn't have a right to his opinion, religious or not. My concern is that he calls her biased due to having merely attended a same sex union ceremony. As was stated earlier, doesn't that make him biased if he ever attended a traditional marriage ceremony? In that light, I still ask what right he has to call her partiality into question.
    Because it doesnt work that way. Attending a heterosexual wedding does not make a statement about homosexual weddings and visa versa. Only statements on homosexual marriages, for or against, are pertainant. Its a good emotional blurb to say that it does but in the end that is all it is. An emotional reaction that has no corelation to the actual issue.

    As for his right, reviewing appointments is part of his job as Senator. (So he has the right to overreact. )

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  2. #10
    I'm sleepy... Jukebox Hero Champion, Word Up Champion, Word Craze Champion gren may be famous one day gren may be famous one day gren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    863
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 24 Posts

    Re: Double Standard of the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna View Post
    Attending a heterosexual wedding does not make a statement about homosexual weddings and visa versa. Only statements on homosexual marriages, for or against, are pertainant.
    Exactly my point. Her attendance at the homosexual ceremony doesn't mean that she is for or against gay marriage. She even states that the union "had no legal effect"; in essence it wasn't a marriage but a sort of commitment ceremony, so Brownbeck's logic that she may be partial to gay marriage is a bit flawed. He may be doing his job, but Neff was already approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It seems to me that Brownbeck is more interested in building a judicial system that follows his beliefs than the partiality of one judge.
    sig by Pyro Psycho

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. New Gallery Cat added (Standard Render Gallery)
    By Sinistra in forum Announcements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Dec 01, 2006, 11:40 PM
  2. double posting
    By elie26 in forum The Thread Vault
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Apr 02, 2006, 07:39 AM
  3. Double posts and others
    By sedka in forum The Thread Vault
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Aug 24, 2005, 11:30 AM
  4. Gallery: Do not double-post
    By GallComp in forum The Thread Vault
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jun 21, 2005, 09:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts