Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
692 bytes added ,  23:48, September 21, 2011
Line 349: Line 349:  
:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them?  '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions?  Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
 
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them?  '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions?  Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
 +
::::::British common law does have valid legal precedence.  However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution.  The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century.  Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.  Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Navigation menu