[quote="lynx, post:9, topic:196976"]
...If a revolution is just does it matter which laws are broken?
Wow! Did you sleep through 8th grade civics class, or just skip school on the days they were teaching about Societies and how they operate? Societies avoid devolving into Chaos by having a set of rules by which everyone voluntarily agrees to abide. Those who choose to deviate from the rules are removed from society by imprisonment, not by 'reprimanding'. Those of us who were paying attention in school clearly remember our teacher explaining that if we all didn't voluntarily abide by the same set of rules, our civilization would quickly degrade to survival of the fittest. That is why those who refuse to play by the same rules (that the rest of us are voluntarily complying with) are removed from society, not 'reprimanded'. I know you were trying to liken gay marriage to our (U.S.) Revolutionary War when you wrote, "If a revolution is just..." but a revolution is not the existance or absense of a gay-marriage law. A revolution is an overthrow of a government. (That was explained in that Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary that sat on the corner of your 8th grade teacher's desk, for anyone to use, including you). Of course you talk big when it is someone else breaking the law (the legislators in this case). If you personally believed this was a 'revolution', both you and your homosexual lover would already be filing state and federal taxes as "Married" (even though your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages) and you would be checking the box for "Married" on every one of the employment applications you fill out. But you don't. You don't because you are not willing to go to jail. You don't because you are not willing to lose your job. But yet those magnificent men to whom you alluded, those men who were in a REAL revolution, wrote down on paper (and each individually signed) that in the cause of their REAL revolution they were willing to sacrifice all they had. Those magnificant men involved in a REAL revolution wrote of their REAL devotion and REAL sacrifice for their REAL revolutionary cause when they wrote, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Like I said Lynux, when it's other people breaking the law, you talk big. What are you willing to sacrifice for your cause? Your life? Your fortune? Your honor? Nope? I didn't think so.
[quote="lynx, post:9, topic:196976"]
So does that mean the UN can reprimand no one or everyone
Oh Lord, here we go again. Guess what else they taught in 8th grade. Yep, that's right! They taught all of us, those who were actually in class and paying attention, what the UN is and how it works! Weren't you paying attention? The UN doesn't 'reprimand' anyone, and the UN has no authority over anyone. The UN deals with countries, not individuals. But to humor you, the UN also does not 'reprimand' countries, and the UN has no authority over any country. I don't have the patience or the time to teach you what you are ignorant of concerning the UN. I would like to say that the UN is a little like George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the Security Council plays the part of the animals that said, "...yes we are all equal, it's just that some of us are more equal than others...". But, then you'd be asking me who is George Orwell and where does he farm?
On the generic topic of gay marriage (or any equivalent euphemism), I am in support of gays being able to join in civil unions that allow the same legal rights, tax privileges, and job benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. But it should not be called 'marriage'. It should have its own term (describing word or phrase). Attempting to refer to gay unions as 'marriage' is like trying to call orange juice 'apple juice'. My voice seems like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness each time I try to explain that 70 percent of the opposition to gay marriages is simply because you want to use the word 'marriage'. That word is already taken. Pick a phrase like "Solemnly Unitized", and work for laws that simply say that those who have been "Solemnly Unitized" shall enjoy the same benefits and rights as married persons. You'd make so much more progress, much much quicker. But no... your so stuck on having the law read that "orange juice" will now be known as "apple juice" you can't see that this is the roadblock that prevents any quick change. He who hath ears, let him hear...
On the topic of legislators breaking the law to sneakily pass a law that was previously shelved, the proper response is for the Governor to refuse to sign it. If the Governor becomes complicit by signing it, then I'm fairly confident that a lawsuit brought by the right party or parties can have that law declared null and void.