Re: OT: What? the clean-shaven outnumber the bearded? "Yer Ugly Mug," etc.

Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> We're not talking common definitions here but official definitions. If an
> official definition is discriminatory, it is illegal, whatever the common
> definition is.
Unfortunately, however unjust it is far from illegal.  We have 50 states
to deal with, and these are not provinces but sovereignties, particularly
in the matter of personal status law.  So that makes 51 jurisdictions
whose laws have to be changed one by one.  The Supreme Court could rule
those laws unconstitutional in a single stroke -- but the current court
is most unlikely to do so.

What is of more concern to the conservatives is the constitutional
requirement that each state give "full faith and credit" to the public
records of every other state.  Hitherto it has been true that "married in
one state, married in all", and Vermont and Hawaii are showing signs of
cracks in the dam, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court in the first,
and a sloppily drafted law in the second.  That is the reason for the
current spate of definition-of-marriage laws being passed.

> It's up to the people to update their definitions and stop
> acting so retarded.
Hear, hear.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      jcowan@reutershealth.com
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath