I've seen that a lot. The basic civil rights decisions of the fifties and sixties are just the result of fashions in legal thinking and political chicanery, and are not decisions finally and hopefully irrevocably, bringing US law into fuller compliance with the Constitution (would be my liberal legal know-nothing way of putting it, so give me a break) and remedying a persistent and destructive legal pattern of discrimination.

Nope, it was just the liberal fashions and self-seeking of the times, and someday these absurd "changes" from the normal and constitutional state of things will be undone.

A line I have always found odious.

Here's Shooter commenting on another aspect of marital law:

LOL. That has to be the worst "appeal to authority" ever. By the way look at how legitimizing unwed motherhood worked out. Bastards unite! Heh.

Shooter 242

I'm so glad he's here to offer us advice.

So glad you are here. I have a whole selection of your comments cued up to demonstrate your integrity, stability, and reasoning abilities. Where shall we start. Since we are on marriage, how about "roll your own"?

and dangerous.

And how! And Jeez, a sitation where they could band together, too!

Can emasculation (or worse) be far behind? Take 'em on one at a time, don't push your luck.

First of all, precedent is merely a garbage heap

Naughty boy, you needn't flatter our host. But Gosh, I'm sure you would know just how to ingratiate yourself at a discussion of this.

I don't mean to be spiralling off into pointless academic quibbling.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, if I were you.

As for Brown v. Board, perhaps you are aware that there are respected legal scholars -- I'm not one of them -- who think that decision was improper,...

A fact no-one can deny.

It's a sockdolager, baby! (I think that's the word I want) Just like Mother makes, if you ask me.

I would thank you for accrediting (If that's even a word) the phrase, and thus saving me from making a fool of myself when I used it, but there's no need to involve you in something as futile as that.

Arne, if you haven't noticed, all you have to do to chase Electro away is: threaten to quote his own archived letter back to him and he hauls his ass away. It's worked twice so far. He claims it's a "smear" which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, hysterical.

I bet it would work with the others, too. There are some doozies in there ("read Electro's other letters") which really could use another Talmudic gloss or exegesis. And I'm just the guy to dredge 'em up and ask for enlightenment. I hope you would be, too, if I'm not here. It seems to work.

Thanks. So that's how I got this way. Shoulda guessed.

Oh well, although I have long subscribed to the axiom that every man is my brother, and shouldn't hesitate to loan me his car, I think the lates research indicates we are all no further from each other than fifth cousins. So everybody should give me cigarettes. You wouldn't see a cuz go smokeless, would ya'?

didn't Groucho, when informed of the anti-Jewish covenants at a swank Beverly Hills country club say: "Well, my daughter is half-Jewish, can she go in (the pool) up to her knees?"

I have no definite citation for this. LWM does, I bet. Oh, he'll debunk me, more than likely. This is a tough crowd.

So where does it hurt you as a human being or taxpayer if I, an adult woman, were to marry two other consenting adults who are not barred from marrying me or each other due to issues of blood relationship or other negating factors that would stop a two-person marriage?

Blueraven

It only hurts me if I don't get an invitation, honey. I'll dance at all your weddings, if you want. Be my guest, I mean, I'll be, oh you know what I mean.

Blueraven, you may be surprised at this, but in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. Now, heaven knows, anything goes!

But all of my exposure to the judicial system has caused me to believe that it's a very arbitrary system. Arbitrary and undemocratic -- and therefore, potentially quite dangerous.

I know, I know, the breathalyser was broken, and so was the radar gun. And you were just giving her a ride home.

Is that what you are talking about? Would you like to tell us how the decision under discussion adds to that arbitrary, undemocratic and dangerous judicial system, or are you just an implyer and inferrer? Renumerative rrades these days, I admit.

I'm a monogamy-preferring heterosexual on a personal level.

One night, hell, one date with me, lance, and you'll see things differently! It's already worked on a couple of girls.

by bringing up orgies involving farm animals and five-year-olds.

I never get invited to anything! Even the stuff I can dress for.

So it's two steps forward this week, (Republicans cave on Iraq and California gay marriage), and one step back, (the Indianna voter-ID decision)?

That's good going for now!

Tell me, is there something about this subject which really brings out the pretentious twit in a guy, or is it something else?