Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Vitamin A
As Dilly points out, just because these guys don't use 'marriage' in the same way you do doesn't rise to the level of 'fraud' that would be outside the First Amendment's protections. (And skip the 'brush up on your constitution, buddy' crapola. I was valedictorian of my law school class, so I've read it a time or two.)
35 posted on 06/04/2003 2:57:14 PM PDT by ChicagoGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: ChicagoGuy
This "using the word marriage the same way you do" crap pretends as if there is no established definition for the term--as if it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That is pure B.S. It has a legal definition. It is a legal designation. Its validity depends upon legal sanction. Just like a corporation. Am I a corporation just by saying I am? Can I be married to my boss's wife by just saying I am?

I expect more from a law school valedictorian. Which law school by the way?
39 posted on 06/04/2003 3:02:53 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson