Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by pudge (1) on 2004.03.23 22:30 (#29595) Homepage Journal
    Some folks are saying that since the law was written in the 19th century they never would have thought to specify that its *one* man and *one* woman, but these are probably the same folks that argue the literal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

    Laws should be taken literally, and if you don't like them, you make new laws. That's how it has always been meant to work.

    How would you like it if we didn't take the First Amendment literally? Who would get to decide that? It's just such a ridiculous notion that we shouldn't take the First Amendment literally. So why not take the Second literally?

    And on that note, a marriage, acc. to the law you quoted, is entered into by males AND females. It doesn't say OR. It doesn't take any real work to read the law in this way ... you make it sound like someone would need to do a lot of digging and twisting of the language to get it to say that.