Silly Nebraskans: Court Throws out Descrimination Amendment
I recently signed up for an email subscription to The Christian Post.
Today's issue featured the headline: Judge Rules Nebraska's Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional which seems only, well, constitutionally inevitable. Inside the article, Matthew Staver, who is the President of the Religious Conservative group, Liberty Counsel (not the Liberty Council) makes a peculiarly ignorant statement which just happens to embody the entirety of this descrimatory Hate Movement.
His comment and my response to the "news" site follow.
“Since some of our judges do not understand common sense, it’s time for the people to spell it out in our United States Constitution – marriage is the union of only one man and one woman.”
Well, unless it is a man and a man, or a woman and a woman who are choosing to marry. What someone's religious beliefs may be has nothing at all to do with the types of laws which may be enacted in this, the United States of America.
Mr. Staver really should read the consitution and a dictionary definiton of "common sense" before he makes such silly and uninformed statements in public.
Michael Bains
sillyhumans.blogspot.com
Now it is almost time for the high court to look at Ohio's recent and nearly identical abomination at the polls.
Today's issue featured the headline: Judge Rules Nebraska's Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional which seems only, well, constitutionally inevitable. Inside the article, Matthew Staver, who is the President of the Religious Conservative group, Liberty Counsel (not the Liberty Council) makes a peculiarly ignorant statement which just happens to embody the entirety of this descrimatory Hate Movement.
His comment and my response to the "news" site follow.
“Since some of our judges do not understand common sense, it’s time for the people to spell it out in our United States Constitution – marriage is the union of only one man and one woman.”
Well, unless it is a man and a man, or a woman and a woman who are choosing to marry. What someone's religious beliefs may be has nothing at all to do with the types of laws which may be enacted in this, the United States of America.
Mr. Staver really should read the consitution and a dictionary definiton of "common sense" before he makes such silly and uninformed statements in public.
Michael Bains
sillyhumans.blogspot.com
Now it is almost time for the high court to look at Ohio's recent and nearly identical abomination at the polls.
Perhaps he should read Common Sense as well - it might help him develop an idea of what tyranny is.
ReplyDeleteBAIIIIIINSSSSS!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI had no idea you posted on this! Your favorite Nebraskan has heated feelings on this issue.
I recall back in '99-'00 the fundies trying to pass resolution 415, or the "Sanctity of Marriage Act" (or some bullshit like that). It had language that specifically stated domestic partnerships would be unconstitutional. I e-mailed my congressman to let him know that the xian religion has no rules regarding college students living with roomates of the same sex; something this change would prohibit. Silly Creduloids didn't even think of that whilst enacting their new Jim Crow laws.