I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

SLOTH LOVE CHUNK.

Maryland was quasi gay marriage friendly already, with it legal in D.C. and all. But I guess NJ is a wash? Maybe Snookie will campaign for gay rights for the ballot initiative they'll have in November.

This from todays local news in Maine:



We had legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 but a peoples veto overturned the legislation. Supposedly, there was much big catholic money from-away channeled into Maine to seal the deal on the vote the last time around.

I'm hoping their money is busy elsewhere and unable to attend this latest battle.

If Gingrich is the nominee, Gozer will send money to Maine.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:24pm by lolgaxe

Me too. Now that two of the "mid-atlantic three" have passed it (knock on wood) maybe we can glare across our borders at Virginia and go for a trifecta.

Oh, Virginia.

This is what it looks like when I one-up you...





Edited, Feb 24th 2012 3:47pm by Jophiel

The social worker's name is Defendant?

Someone's parents had low expectations.

Every time I see you now, I think about SatW and giggle.

I know what a primary source is. I also know that what you're asking for has nothing to do with what you normally get from a primary source.



That's funny. It really really is. I always love it when someone who clearly doesn't grasp the concept of what he's discussion attempts to tell someone who does (that's me, btw) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not "fall on the floor" funny, but still amusing as hell.



Yup. And if we want to know *what* that literary source said, that would be the use of such a primary source. But that would not be where we'd go for *why*. You do understand that you're asking me to prove why a law was passed, and not what the law says.



Yup. And that's where you'd learn "why" something was written, or even what it meant. Do you see how anything beyond the literal words that are physically written on the page cannot ever be determined by going to a "primary source"? Of course, anyone who actually understood the concept of a primary source, would know this. But you don't. I do though.



Yup. You're almost there.



Correct. And if laws were written by single individuals like pieces of literature, we could have primary sources of the reasons *why* they were written with the words they contained. But since they aren't, then all such writings are secondary sources. They must be. When Jefferson wrote his bit about the "wall of separation" between church and state, that cannot be considered a primary source for what the 1st amendment means, can it? It's only and always a secondary source. It's one person's opinion about what that amendment means. An important opinion, certainly, but not primary because nothing other than the actual words in the law can *ever* be considered a primary source.



Yup. But what you're demanding can only be found in the equivalent of opinion pieces written at the time, or written after that time. There is no primary source for *why* a law is written. The closest we can come is the incredibly rare occasion in which the body of the law itself contains a detailed reason. And even then, it's subject to interpretation, right? Consider the following: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Notice how the first part is an explanation of why this particular bit of law exists? It's as primary a source of "why" that can ever possibly exist for a law, right?

Get back to me when everyone agrees on what the first clause of that amendment actually means. Then get back to me when we agree on what separation of church and state means. Or any of a hundred other legal concepts.



And only the most simple minds think that this works in the world of law and politics. It's *all* opinion. It's all interpretation. There is no single primary source that tells us exactly what a law means, much less why it was passed. If there was, there'd kinda be no need for a Supreme Court, would there?



Of course not. The difference between you and I is that I understand that *all* sources which express an opinion about why a law is passed will be biased. You (and to be fair a lot of liberals based on the frequency with which this particular demand for sources of opinions is raised) labor under the absurd belief that there's some magical authoritarian source of all information which can tell us who is right and who is wrong. But in the case of interpreting the law, or determining why laws are written, there isn't. There can't be. You're delusional if you think there is.


What's so funny about this is that you also can't provide any "primary source" showing that the laws were written for some other reason anyway. But that lack does not prevent you from insisting that if I can't find one that supports my position that I must be wrong and you must be right. You can't apply the same logic to your own position. It's like a blind spot or something. If you can't do the same thing you're demanding that the other side do, then the fact the other guy can't do it never proves you right or him wrong. It means that you're asking for something that is meaningless (or nonhelpful) to the argument at hand.




I can't provide you with anything you would accept as an unbiased, let alone primary, source. And you can't do so either. So how about we accept that any source will be biased, and non-primary, and move on?


The best we can do is look at the primary source (the laws themselves) and ask the question "what does this do?". Then we can ask "Why would someone want to do what this law does?". That's what I've done, and which is the proper way to approach this. And as I've repeatedly stated, despite constant insistence that I'm wrong, not one person has yet produced a counter explanation. Why do *you* think that the government created all those benefits and limited them in the way they did?


If you can't answer that question yourself, then you somewhat lose the grounds to question my answer. Try providing an alternative and arguing why your alternative is better than mine. Failing that, you lose. That's how arguments are supposed to work, right? The guy with the best explanation wins. I have one. You don't. Therefore, I win by default.

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 7:20pm by gbaji