Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
What you perhaps missed, was that was direct legal opinion from the decission from the ruling in question.
So I think what you mean to say is... "Those judges don't know what they are talking about."
You are free to back out of the debate however you wish, but there wasn't a stronger piece of evidence either of us could bring to the arguement then the opinion of the judges in the case directly stating the precedential value that can no longer be used in direct, in depth.
In persisting to disagree, you are not disagreeing with me, and saying I don't know what i'm talking about. You are disagreeing with the judges who ruled in the case, and saying they don't know what they are talking about.
|
No, what I am saying, and this would be completely unncessary to explain AGAIN if you would read through what is being discussed, is that the precedence that potentially would have been created by the LCR vs USA ruling would not have gay rights implications. It was a ruling that went very far in expanding the bill of rights to military law.
|
Again, what you missed is, the legal opinion specifically stated there was.
I'd suggest reading their opinion and concurrence... that lawerence....
"did not address how homosexual conduct might be addressed outside a criminal context."
The ruling specifically talks about LCRs gay rights implications.
