Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[CobaltBlue]

FC, come on, be fair. The sources you quote were disapproving of the things they discussed. They weren't talking about plans to turn people into automatons, they were decrying the tendency to do so.

[longshadow]

Or inane stellar motion posts few will read ping!

Your detailed, insightful posts are welcome relief to the noise level that sometimes dominates these threads, and serve as an excellent Troll repellent.

[CobaltBlue]

>>That's not a good way to begin a post<<

Sorry, I thought we were reasoning together. Law is about as far from science as it gets. My opinion is worth what you paid for it.

I don't expect you to know the dichotomy between "full faith and credit" vs. "void against public policy."

And, given the history of "void against public policy," I don't expect you to find it comforting.

If one state decides to allow homosexual marriages, I fully expect homosexuals to attempt to force other states to recognize them.

No sane person can predict the future outcome of those attempts.

So, on the one hand, we have relative certainty - Congress can authorize a constitutional amendment outlawing such unions, and given sufficient state support, this may become the law of the land.

On the other hand, we have the Constitutional principles of limited government and federalism.

Decisions, decisions.

[f.Christian]

unquestion new sociopolitical world order placemaker !

[Junior]

How would researchers test for a Creator? One cannot simply claim that ignorance of a process on the researchers' part is indicative of creation. If that were the case, lightning was caused by magic until Faraday came along.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't expect you to know the dichotomy between "full faith and credit" vs. "void against public policy."

But I do. That's why I mentioned Dred Scott, which required a Constitutional amendment to undo. I haven't researched the point, but I'd be surprised -- blown away, really -- if some state's public policy could override the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution. That's why I think gay marriage in one state must be recognized everywhere, and why I think an exception to the FF&C clause must be carved out for status-creating laws. That's my free opinion, and valued accordingly.

[balrog666]

Wow! Looks like the trolls have given up (or taken the night off)!

[ALS]

To: VadeRetro

Would a theist truly be satisfied with an argument which meekly asserted "well . . . the Almighty is at least responsible for the flagellum of a bacterium?"

God of dysentery?


3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138

[PatrickHenry]

Nah, they're probably re-grouping. Doesn't matter. Virtual Ignore will carry the day!!

[js1138]

Legalese put them to sleep. Since they would have to actually read and understand the posts before deciding which side to flame, they are out of the loop. Actually I haven't seen two disctinct sides. It's more like a discussion, but since I haven't seen one of those in a long time, I'm not sure.

[f.Christian]

turn people into godless worshiping statist automatons placemakers !

[ALS]

God of dysentery?

3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138

[f.Christian]

turn people into Virtual Ignore godless worshiping statist automatons placemakers !

[CobaltBlue]

A state may refuse to recognize a marriage which is legal in another state because it is void against the public policy of the first state. That's black letter law. If Utah decided to recognize bigamous marriages, I doubt very much that Virginia would honor them.

How that actually plays out in your state is another matter.

[f.Christian]

turn people into Virtual Ignore godless worshiping statist stiff neck leg brain automatons placemakers !

[PatrickHenry]

If Utah decided to recognize bigamous marriages, I doubt very much that Virginia would honor them.

Isn't that why Utah had to give up the legality of such marriages as a precondition of statehood? I'm not certain of this, but I'm "fairly" certain.

[CobaltBlue]

>> Dred Scott, which required a Constitutional amendment to undo<<

One could argue that Dred Scott actually required a war to undo.

I have nothing but contempt for Justice Taney, so please don't get me started on Dred Scott.

To be fair to all involved, the war was probably inevitable when the Constitution was enacted, it was just delayed.

If the non-slave-holding states and the slave-holding states had formed separate countries, eventually there stil would have been a war between them.

[f.Christian]

snatch clone new sociopolitical world order super statist worshiper placemaker !

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, I think what your "local public policy trumps the FF&C clause" doctrine amounts to is something very close to the old Nullification Doctrine, advocated before the Civil War by such as Calhoun. I understand that Calhoun wanted his state to ignore Federal laws, but still, an "unnatural" marriage from another state that is imposed on yours by virtue of the FF&C clause would be valid in your state unless your state could raise something like the old (and now discredited) nullification doctrine.