From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> >To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the > >> >appearance of being a "run with the pack" kind of guy. I don't mean to > >> >be insulting, but you seem to be on a "dittohead" heading lately. > >> > >> I am flabbergasted. > >> > >> I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I > >> *know* will be very unpopular here. > >> > >> And *I* am running with the pack????? Hello???? > >> > >> I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I > >> doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from > >> any other right-wing source. > > > > > >I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is > >making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as > >you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. > > In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of > repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and > opinions are not credible. > > On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are > present in other sources, then I am merely "running with the pack." > > Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome > here as credible participants of Brin-L. Yes, yes, try to vilify those arguing with you to detract attention from the merits of the arguments. Keep up the good work. > >I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, > >and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly > >worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement > >of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction > >based in fear. > > Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the > Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a > FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico > and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at > *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. > Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days > now that this "semicolon" delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* > handing out faux marriage certificates. Yes, it's indicative of the fact that those opposed to the same sex marriages want to be heard from a higher state court on the matter without first having gone through the lower courts. That court has a very busy schedule and almost never hears a case before it has been through the lower courts. Now who's asking for special treatment? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
