> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snipped most> > I will repeat again. I would not have signed the > Bush vs. Gore majority > opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do > not consider the Bush > vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence > for me.
Reasonable. And agreed. :) > This is also the same court that just a few years > ago struck down > Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg > vs. Carhart. <sniplet> > Suffice to say, I have very real worries that > Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, > Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage > right next to the right > for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental > health is in danger in > the penumbra of the Constitution. Not trying to be provocative, but did you read the responses WRT the whole "partial birth abortion" act that I and others posted? How it isn't a medical term at all, and except in the very rare instance of a late-discovered case of anencephaly (a terrible and fatal defect in which the fetus is missing most of the brain, and sometimes part of the skull as well) isn't used? That it isn't taught anymore in the US? Again I find it illogical that you juxtapose 'homosexual marriage' with abortion; one is a medical procedure, the other a social/legal contract between two adults. They are not in any way related. The _Economist_ article that Erik posted re: gay marriage had several telling points, particularly about equality (in the paragraph beginning "The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple..."). I just don't see how allowing two adults who wish to publically commit themselves to each other is a threat to our civilisation, truly I don't. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
