Does Gay Marriage minimize Marriage in any way?
Yes it is adding a sexual idea into someone’s visual description as witness, it is then asking to make confirmation of this in/on an official documented public process. If I agree as a witness with the suggestion, plagiarism, sexual undertone I am asked to commit perjury. A person would need to violate a right to privacy to be able to witness the explained thing/ public likely-hood. Confessing the hard to prove perjury publicly, I am given no common defense, the public is given no common defense to the admitted guilt other than inability to understand the crime by its complexity, and the person who admits must wait for the statute of limitation to run out. The problem is like homicides the limitation may never really take effect till after the fraud is identity publicly.
Another point of minimizing takes place on the level of immigration part of the original context of filing for Marriage license is to acknowledge the creation of a Nations growth directly. Couples of marriage share a different regulation on citizenship as children are expected by consent to marriage, consummation of the marriage was the united state equal to all men and woman couples including gay men and lesbian woman.
Specifications are an example of what you ask, possibly mathematic ratio, the process of proportioning as well.
Okay thermadgadfly two things first you are using the word if a lot. You are also using the word if, and placing me inside of a theoretic state as well. This is like playing pretend not to cause an increase in any insecurity to what is already a personal issue for you. This fact is okay and is human. I am going to take some constitutional liberties here while speaking truthfully. It is our fault when we panic, so in the event, not if, when you are being laughed at while alone hide under the table, because someone dropped their tray that made a loud bang! There are many of us right there with you under that table.
Since us, meaning both you, and I, have come to an impasse with the fascination with gum fire-arm issue as a freedom of speech somehow. I am going to give some United State direction. The argument by American constitution, or for others United State Constitution is based on a student’s not being pro-active in asking/ seeking for drills, a state of readiness which now include assaults by armed militia, and or single person. Welcome to the freedom of speech Fire does not just mean flames and objects burning.
The precedent here for a person my age, in connection to stress and panic while in institutionalized education is instruction given along the lines of seeking shelter under a desk. Seek this comfort in event of notifications of chemical nuclear attack. So with a point to maintain a sense of humor I would have to tell you if you has seen my grades you would understand the lack of fear to be shot on my part. So again the stress of the overall pressure of the burden of education place a unique quality to a united state, this meaning some state of fact that is shared as close to equal in all concerns to the people in general.
I’m not sure who you are addressing Themadgadfly. I will take a liberty.
No; it is like saying the person who causes a panic can be no more responsible than irresponsible people already present at a accident. Allowing people to blame their actions knowingly on another is wrong, it is not a right. This is not only by constitutional definition it is in line with many crimes. Here again we are moving away from the freedom of speech to address a different united State.
I am going to write this as a disclaimer as well as common defense to the United States Constitution, while on the topic. It will most certainly come up at some point. A student has/may take a Constitutional right, a liberty to pull a fire-Alarm in a school, or other buildings. Howeverpublic commitment to all concerned the student must seek written consent by not only the Principle of the school/manager, the district school board/shares holder, partners, insurer and the local fire Marshal which includes all appropriate concerns of authority in this regard/owner. These establishments for many reason have right to negate a request for spontaneous test without full explanation. No more detail by united State constitution need be explained then that the Fire Department has lives that are held beyond reasonable cost for this public test by the action taken. Simple detailed information on response times is considered to be equal in every way to test by constitutional principles and legal precedent.
Can you possibly rephrase?
Yes
The state of legal debate is being changed, now it is over if a civilians action can be used to perform a public service test, or should it always be dictated by authority, tests like emergency drill. Our question is now intellectual hidden and directs the public opinion away from must all emergency drills come from authority with a proper notice? Do all school fire drills undertake this protocol? We are no longer talking about the First Amendment right by this example, it is officially a United States Constitutional Right alone, holding no amendment to change over it. A right to share access to public test.
The action was provided by civil proceedings and this means the civil court jury was acting as the grand jury, while legal counsel forget their protection of Miranda right. The mistake of the general welfare is that the Miranda right is only for the accused directly and not their associates in legal matters.
Special Note Doing something like pulling a fire alarm is not the same as yelling FIRE. Yelling fire is a public test that the public can fail. The person yelling fire is not setting the building on fire as a condition of test. There is blame yes, there is guilt yes, there is no more guilt then what everyone else at the theater now hold.
Free describes a quality of state. Therefor must have a limit by its specification.
Okay as we should keep this a freedom of speech context. Fire is no different than yelling attention by its written self-value. It is only describing a detail to be sought in the public. LOOK FOR THIS! Is what is being screamed out by an unrestricted grammar context not held by public grading. It is only the appointed cost which is not consistent and is being manipulated to a united state of blame from all who gather in a location, to one person.
I agree the dispute is not about intent, it is about the united state created by the word title with the crowd. The person who screams “FIRE “carries equal blame? Yes, equal blame. Greater blame? No, the person does not carry greater blame then all others people in the theater.
The state of legal debate is being changes, now it becomes if a civil court action is being used to dictate emergency drills must come with advanced notification or from one authority.The United States Constitutional warning comes in the way of a civil court uses a jury as its Grand Jury without the benefit of experience and protection of Miranda right
A person yelling fire when holding an incendiary device is a completely different story as they are clearly without interpretations a direct threat themselves.
Also all Council is not equal in their discriminations to Constitutional principle. Meaning there are exceptional lawyers and they should not all be blamed as a united state.
When the absence of Maranda right takes place in a civil law it effects the idea a lawyer can take part in a public crime. A lawyer is taking advantage that the person who has attacked a people, hurt them in that process cannot be found. So the person who can be found must be to blame.
Your argument is not considering that the person who yelled fire was simply mistaken. Either in a conduct of humor, or in identifying a real threat of flame. A civil lawsuit for money as vengeance does not institute justice.
No you are not responsible for a groups panic. You are blamed for the actions of others.
Free speech cannot have cost or assigned value, all things called free should have no cost, or assigned value fixed to them, that simple. The problem is somehow people believe that a basic principle is negotiable in its definition and speech is not either free or grievance as choice.
Adding additional confusion is the United States Constitution was written to perform judicial separation without its own written laws. As it may assume law of state, or grievance alone to perform separations of dispute.
