Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

Not sure about your last but we, at least, have raised the bar of best living for this point in time and wait for you to take up the challenge.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Might may not make right, but being a pussy never solves anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled such laws unconstitutional back in 2003. Which is to say that no such laws exist. Do try to keep up, eh?

...says the guy with the Queen of England on his money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL. Get over it and accede to the Union. You'll be glad you did, in the end.

 

In God we trust is better?

I was looking for state stats on sodomy but found this instead.

Bestiality is actually legal in some states too, where homosexual marriage is not. So...there ya go lol...

where?

You interested?

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoophilia.htm

Regards
DL

 

It's less strange than having a hereditary monarch of a European country on the money, is what I said.

But I'd be all for striking "In God we trust" from all official US documents/materials, as far as that goes.

So what?

Is the charge there supposed to be... that the USA has an actual federal system that allows genuine leeway to states in various areas of social policy? Or, what?

 

Is slavery a social policy and what was it, Alabama, that had integration forced down it's throat? Genuine leeway eh.

At least in my country, a Gay does not have to change life styles just because he or she crosses into another province.

Regards
DL

 

Of course - what else would it be?

Said leeway is not infinite, and there have indeed been contentious episodes in delineating its boundaries. Does that have something to do with gay marriage or bestiality? Are you now insisting that the USA has totally uniform laws across states? Any point at all?

You mean, not any more than anyone else does? Because there are substantial variances in "lifestyle" to be found between Canadian provinces - there is no US state that I could move to wherein I'd need to learn to speak French, for one obvious example. But: sure they do. There's plenty of variance in social attitudes towards gay couples to be found in Canada, whether or not there's any legal difference in recognition of marriages (and not that legal recognition of marriage has much to do with "lifestyle" anyway).

Moreover, why is this presumed social uniformity supposed to be a good thing, as such? Sure, it's nice when it prevents anti-gay discrimination or whatever, but the flipside is that citizens have that much less leeway to seek out/construct local societies that exact cater to their preferences.

Not that I buy these obtuse implications that the extent of Canadian federalism is particularly different from the American version. Nor, for that matter, can I see where you do - you profess bafflement at the lack of a unified federal policy on gay marriage, while your own country can't even settle on a single language.

 

LOL.
What are the official U S languages?

Uniform laws eventually lead to a---relatively--consistent pattern of thought and excellence throughout the country. Diversity is fine to learn from but once the lesson is learned then consistent acceptance of the better way should prevail for the whole common.

""the flipside is that citizens have that much less leeway to seek out/construct local societies that exact cater to their preferences.""

Yes. Less weird groups that want to follow agendas that the majorities would likely condemn.

Regards
DL

 

There are none - we needn't legislate such, exactly because we are perfectly capable of adopting a useful common standard without government coersion (when we come across one).

That would be "mediocrity," not "excellence." Common standards that result in excellence almost never require legislation to enshrine - they tend to succeed on their own power. In places where conflicting standards proliferate, it is typically the case that there is no single, common superior method.

That presumes that having one common standard for everyone is always better than allowing a diversity of different standards, each suited to different settings. Which is a pretty fucking bold statement, as a general principle.

But, since you're the one pushing it as a differentiator of your national greatness, how then is it that y'all haven't figured out which language to speak yet? For that matter, why are you not pushing for Canada to accede to the USA - surely we'd be better off with one single standard practice of government (and the USA is obviously the superior one, by any measure), so why tolerate a separate Canadian government?

Majoritarianism is dangerous - and so we have things like "rights" which are not subject to majority approval. Are you unaware that homosexuality is widely viewed - in your own country - as a "weird group that wants to follow agendas that the majority would likely condemn?" I.e., that all this weird rhetoric about uniformity has nothing to do with the justification of the certain uniformities you invoke as marks of superiority. Never mind the fact that your own society, as a whole, doesn't seem so much more uniform and standardized than ours - you don't even speak a common language, so who cares about the uniformity of gay marriage laws?