On 4 Aug 2005 06:43:16 -0700,
"someone" <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

They even just made same-sex marriage fully legal, nationwide,
as well.

Most **Canadians** are INTELLIGENT.

But fortunately, we ARE outgrowing such stupidity. Vermont
started it, and Massachusetts has fully-legal same-sex marriage,
statewide. And the Oregonians were smart enough to legalize
death with dignity... TWICE over!

Are those the same smart Oregonians who voted to pass
Measure 36?

Oregon's equivalent of a so-called "DOMA" law? Clearly, the
majority of Oregonians have done a better job of outgrowing and
rejecting *some* forms of bigotry better than others.

You called Oregonians "intelligent" because the voters seem to
agree with you on legal suicide.

It's not a case of their "agreeing with me."

It's a case of their
having the necessary common sense and compassion to support
death with dignity for those needing such desired relief.

Yet those same intelligent people don't agree with you on
homosexual marriage.

I'll bet we'd find that almost ALL of those who support same-sex
marriage -- which is 100% HARMLESS -- also support death with dignity.
And that those *other* supporters of death with dignity are well on their
way to outgrowing homophobia.

I'm betting that they'll outgrow their remnants of homophobia,
and still become one of the next states to legalize same-sex marriage.
It's only a matter of time.

The vote was 57% to 24% in a state which is typically very liberal.
Doesn't sound like a "remnant."

"57-24 percent?" Your math obviously needs as much help as your
warped notions of "morality" do.

But let's look only at that 57% figure.

Unless, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court sensibly legalizes it,
**nationwide**, first.

You'd like to see the USSC make law from the bench.....again?
You don't care how you get your way, do ya.

CLUE, ignorant loser. Judicial review, and the legitimate Judicial
Law which has served as the valuable and necessary fine-tuning of
the generalities of Constitutional Law, has been in place for more than
200 years. Repeat: Two HUNDRED years. (Marbury vs. Madison,
1804.)

At any time during that 201-year period, Congress COULD have
initiated a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the Consti-
tution exclusionary, and in the process, eviscerated one of the three
branches of government, and wrecked the Constitution's system of
checks and balances -- the system which has preserved our individual
liberties for as long as America has been a constitutional republic.

Over just the last 51 years, we've seen many hugely-important
instances where the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has been
'WAY ahead of the curve with respect to public sentiment which
still had a LOT of growing up to do.