[RAndoMness]=> 28Sep09
 [JPsDocs] => 22Feb09
 [JPics] => 10Dec11

February 2020
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
recent music
Boycott SONY



    Possible Prints 2  echo $newJPics;
    thumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnail thumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnail thumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnailthumbnail
    Please see the full-sized pictures.

    uploaded Tue August 08 2006 at 1:22 PM
    Mirky Waters  echo $newRAM;
    added Tue August 08 2006 at 2:12 PM
    [Note from the editor - meet Will. Will wanted to comment on my article Amend This, but he really got into it. About the time he started to make an outline of his arguments, I told him I would post it as a guest article.]

    Everyone believes their view is clear while strangely enough when mixed together everything becomes murky. As a late arriver to this discussion I feel it necessary to state some assumptions before dumping my 'clear' opinion into the well.

    • This argument is presented with an LDS set of moral values in place
    • Not all opponents to same sex-marriage agree on other issues
    • The voice of the people is not necessarily aligned with the LDS view
    • The voice of the people is never constant

    Good, now the being said here's what I would like to address as the major issues.
    • Does/Should the Constitution define what is right and wrong?
    • Why do same-sex couples want marriage rights?
    • Should an amendment be made to the Constitution against same-sex marriage?

    Now that the water is officially murkier, let's begin with the first question. Does the constitution define right and wrong? From the point of view of the average American, I would say that it does. In an idealistic world parts of the government are meant to act as a voice of the people, be those people right or wrong on an absolute scale (which outside the LDS realm you would be hard pressed to find complete absolutes). The constitution is a concrete device to express that people's voice as well as the voice of those elected officials (Contrary to popular belief the office of president is not and was never intended to be someone to act as the voice of the people as congress was). This being said, how does this relates to same-sex marriage; if a group or elected individual can garner enough support for a cause, right or wrong on an absolute scale, it can become law. If I am a proponent of same-sex marriage and I can gather enough support then I can propose legislation that endorses or protects same-sex marriage; thus making it 'right' in the eyes of those obedient to the laws of the land. And the opposite can also be said as well for those against. As far as the country is concerned 'right' and 'wrong' are defined by the citizens of said country, manifested through their laws.

    There's more to read. Read the extended entry.