Discussion:
Ballot to ban gay marriage debated
(too old to reply)
y***@aol.com
2006-05-07 19:54:28 UTC
Permalink
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?







http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/


In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.

A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.

The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.

But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.

The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.

A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.

Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.
--
----------

J Young
***@aol.com
Adam H
2006-05-07 20:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Since you have yet to show one good reason to ban gay marriage, why
are you so afraid to give people rights that have no effect except on
the consenting adults involved?

---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
Morton Davis
2006-05-07 21:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Since you have yet to show one good reason to ban gay marriage, why
are you so afraid to give people rights that have no effect except on
the consenting adults involved?
The problem is: There is no provision for "gay marriage". "Gay marriage is
currently about where interracial marriage was 50 years ago.
m***@netzoola.com
2006-05-07 21:32:06 UTC
Permalink
there should be no provision, just allow it like they do with everyone
else, are they elephants or humans? If they are human let them marry.
Attila
2006-05-07 23:10:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:54:28 -0400, <***@aol.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<5fWdneXKScTzzcPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-***@giganews.com> wrote:

Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.
james g. keegan jr.
2006-05-08 00:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.

do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you
do? even osprey has legitimately commented on your hypocrisy.

your hypocrisy aside, what you might want to do to make yourself feel
like an even bigger asshole is take a random sample of posts you've
whined about and then search google for the number of posts with this
topic, demonstrating that readers know what is of interest to them
far better than you do.
Douglas Berry
2006-05-08 00:20:44 UTC
Permalink
What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
<***@gmail.com> posting the following on Sun, 07 May 2006
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
Post by james g. keegan jr.
Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.

Killfile him and move on already!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
james g. keegan jr.
2006-05-08 00:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
Post by james g. keegan jr.
Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.
Killfile him and move on already!
actually, i reply to him *only* in the cases like the one shown above
where he demonstrates his continued ignorance of usenet and
disrespect for the judgement of readers.

it amuses me to see threads he tries to kill with hundreds of
follow-ups and sub-discussions.

plus he is old and apparently a bit senile so a bit of repetition if
probably good for him.
robpar
2006-05-08 16:35:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:20:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
Post by Douglas Berry
What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
Post by james g. keegan jr.
Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.
Killfile him and move on already!
I've kill filed both of them, but you just had to reply. Ignore
them. Then I will not have to kill file you.
Natalie Clifford Barney
2006-05-08 00:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...I am sure that you are familiar with this
Jon......
Post by y***@aol.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/
In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.
A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.
The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.
But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.
The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.
A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.
Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.
--
----------
J Young
--
Natalie Clifford Barney
Cumann Na mBan-1916
Membre; L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....

"If too little of the love I invoke appears in this book, it is because I have better spent it elsewhere.
Here there remain only fragments."
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-08 17:55:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Mark Sebree
2006-05-08 18:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Which means that there should be no problem with homosexual marriage,
since it does not affect the majority at all, and simply extends rights
that the majority has to a minority group that is currently being
denied those rights unfairly.

If you want to claim that homosexual marriage is at the expense of
heterosexual marriage, or that it affects heterosexual marriage at all,
then you need to explain exactly how heterosexual marriage is affected.
Especially since there is no evdience of this.

The only "perverted minority" that seems to have a problem with
homosexual marriage is the homophobics that do not want homosexuals to
have any rights at all, in direct contradiction of the U.S.
Constitution.

Mark Sebree
Parsifal
2006-05-08 18:55:17 UTC
Permalink
*and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
*expense of the majority.

Care to explain to us how gay-marriage is affecting you in any way
Fuckin' Bonney?
Of course not, shut up then...
--sexkitten--
2006-05-08 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsifal
*and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
*expense of the majority.
Care to explain to us how gay-marriage is affecting you in any way
Fuckin' Bonney?
His husband is cheating on him?
JMO..........
Post by Parsifal
Of course not, shut up then...
--
--sexkitten--
Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
-Oscar Wilde

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Dionisio
2006-05-09 01:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsifal
Care to explain to us how gay-marriage is affecting you in any way
Fuckin' Bonney?
Simple: Homosexuals, what with their tighter-than-pussy tails, are
taking away "her" big-cocked black males.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Boy Toy
2006-05-09 03:15:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 May 2006 01:55:09 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Post by Parsifal
Care to explain to us how gay-marriage is affecting you in any way
Fuckin' Bonney?
Simple: Homosexuals, what with their tighter-than-pussy tails, are
taking away "her" big-cocked black males.
ROFL!
newsguy
2006-05-09 03:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Like you blacks wanting to marry white women?
Natalie Clifford Barney
2006-05-09 04:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
I already hold my lover's hand in the best restauraunts, kiss gher gently in public
and show the same amount of tenderness and attention that a straight couple would.



--
Natalie Clifford Barney
Cumann Na mBan-1916
Membre; L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....

"If too little of the love I invoke appears in this book, it is because I have
better spent it elsewhere. Here there remain only fragments."
Richard Burns
2006-05-09 04:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
I already hold my lover's hand in the best restauraunts, kiss gher gently in public
and show the same amount of tenderness and attention that a straight couple would.
The evangeical crowd is a pretty bored bunch....you get bored
staring at all the same megachurches, Wal-Marts, tract houses &
TBN all the time.

Richard.
Sanders Kaufman
2006-05-09 06:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Burns
The evangeical crowd is a pretty bored bunch....you get bored
staring at all the same megachurches, Wal-Marts, tract houses &
TBN all the time.
Richard.
It's not just the Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans think it's a bad idea, too.
And not just them, too, either.
In fact, in darn near every congressional district throughout the nation -
the story's pretty much the same.

Only the most LIBERAL communities ever get any kind of pro-gay-marriage
things funded.
There's only been what - less than a dozen? - cities in the whole dang
nation that ever played at legalizing gay marriage.

Here in Dallas, you can't hardly throw a bible without hitting a GayBLT.
But has there been any *serious* gay-marriage initiative? No.
Why? Because we can't afford to, and don't want to, expand government any
further than it's already grown.

Any achievable marriage reform would have to include ridding government of
the burden of Family Licensing.
It's not just expensive - it's immoral.

If two or more people want to form a financial partnership - there are
already provisions for doing that in the Uniform Commercial Code.
--
Conservative government guarantees a liberal society.
Dionisio
2006-05-09 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's not just the Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans think it's a bad idea, too.
But you repeat yourself.

;-)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Morton Davis
2006-05-09 12:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's not just the Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans think it's a bad idea, too.
But you repeat yourself.
If you mean he made an ASS of himself again, he did repeat himself.
Gulo Gulo
2006-05-09 13:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Richard Burns
The evangeical crowd is a pretty bored bunch....you get bored
staring at all the same megachurches, Wal-Marts, tract houses &
TBN all the time.
Richard.
It's not just the Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans think it's a bad idea, too.
One wonders how you came to that moronic conclusion ...

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/a-strategy-for-sucess.html

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/the_case_for_civil_marriage_equality.html
Sanders Kaufman
2006-05-09 19:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gulo Gulo
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's not just the Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage.
Log Cabin Republicans think it's a bad idea, too.
One wonders how you came to that moronic conclusion ...
http://online.logcabin.org/issues/a-strategy-for-sucess.html
http://online.logcabin.org/issues/the_case_for_civil_marriage_equality.html
I got this infrom from talking to actual Log Cabin Republicans.
Back when Prop 2 was on the table in Texas, I talked to several who felt the
this way.
One Lesbian at one of our local defense contractors was absolutely ballistic
at the thought of gay marriage.
Interestingly - she's a border-bigot and anti-Islamic.
And she's not the kind who gets offended when she's called that.

I think the mistake you made is in taking the official word on the matter.
They're Republicans - they say whatever they think the voters want to hear -
and then do the opposite.

By *claiming* to support "civil marriage" - they draw in suckers (no pun
intended).
But look at the reality - have they *done* anything in that direction? No.
Do they support politicians who oppose civil marriage - yes.

You go ahead and believe the press releases - I'll believe the people.
Deeds, not words.
--
"If Those People want representation in government, they should leave
Texas" - Rick Perry.
Sanders Kaufman
2006-05-09 06:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
Actually, that's the one where place perversion is not.
Perversion is in the eye of the community.
It's macro, not micro.

You can debate the morality, or lack thereof, of your lifestyle all day and
night.
But that lifestyle is, by the English language, perverse... even in San
Francisco and Amsterdam.
It's just weird.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Marriage would grant you status as a more "stable" person than single folks
for insurance and credit purposes.
This, even though (if I'm to take you at your word of honor) there's this
one thought that you have that makes you vomit spontaneously.
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
Marriage grants you special extra tax breaks.
Marriage grants you special extra commercial rights.
It also gives you special access to faith-based and community-based
resources - like family discounts and professional counseling.
And for every one of these things, where married folks get special discounts
and such - single people have to pick up the slack.

When the GayBLT community demands "special" favors like this, they're
fucking up.
Instead - you should be demanding that government get out of the marriage
business altogether.

You know - the US can't pay its bills as it is.
So - this is a lousy time for you to ask for a raise.

btw:
How much in *additional* taxes are you willing to pay to make up for the
revenue shortfalls your tax breaks would generate?
And how much in *additionl* taxes are you willing to pay to fund the added
beaurocracy?
Do you really think single people should have to bear the financial burden
of your (likely short-term) marriage?
I don't.
--
"If Those People want representation in government, they should leave
Texas" - Rick Perry.
Mark Sebree
2006-05-09 15:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
Actually, that's the one where place perversion is not.
Perversion is in the eye of the community.
It's macro, not micro.
It is still an opinion, and one that is not necessarily based in truth.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
You can debate the morality, or lack thereof, of your lifestyle all day and
night.
But that lifestyle is, by the English language, perverse... even in San
Francisco and Amsterdam.
No, it is not. It does not fit the definition of "perverse".
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's just weird.
To you.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Marriage would grant you status as a more "stable" person than single folks
for insurance and credit purposes.
And the problem with that is?
Post by Sanders Kaufman
This, even though (if I'm to take you at your word of honor) there's this
one thought that you have that makes you vomit spontaneously.
Why would you say that?
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Natalie Clifford Barney
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
Marriage grants you special extra tax breaks.
The same tax breaks that heterosexual married couples get, so there is
nothing special about them.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Marriage grants you special extra commercial rights.
The same commercial rights that heterosexual married couples get, so
there is nothing special about them.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It also gives you special access to faith-based and community-based
resources - like family discounts and professional counseling.
The access to faith-based (which they probably get anyway throught
their own churches) and community based resources that heterosexual
married couples get. So there is nothing special about them.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
And for every one of these things, where married folks get special discounts
and such - single people have to pick up the slack.
And why do you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry the consent,
unrelated adult of his or her choice?
Post by Sanders Kaufman
When the GayBLT community demands "special" favors like this, they're
fucking up.
So far, you have not named any special favors that homosexual married
couples would get. You have only named the services that would be
available for them as well as heterosexual married couples.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Instead - you should be demanding that government get out of the marriage
business altogether.
You know - the US can't pay its bills as it is.
So - this is a lousy time for you to ask for a raise.
Asking for a raise from their jobs has nothing to do with homosexual
marriage.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
How much in *additional* taxes are you willing to pay to make up for the
revenue shortfalls your tax breaks would generate?
None, since the revenue shortfalls would be minimal at most. A better
idea is to get rid of the Republican generated pork in the budget.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
And how much in *additionl* taxes are you willing to pay to fund the added
beaurocracy?
What additional beaurocracy? They would go to the same courthouse and
the same clerk to get their marriage licenses as heterosexual couples,
file it with the same clerk as heterosexual couples, and all the laws
would be the same as well as the applicable agencies.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Do you really think single people should have to bear the financial burden
of your (likely short-term) marriage?
The difference in the financial burden created would be minimal at
most. And there is no reason to think that a homosexual marriage would
be any shorter than a heterosexual marriage. What would make you think
that it would be a "short term marriage" anyway? You have nothing to
base your speculation on besides your prejudices and heterosexual
marriage, and I do not see you grousing about preventing heterosexuals
from marrying.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
I don't.
Then you can support all the burdens that heterosexual couples create,
and you don't have to worry about the homosexual couples. Other people
will cover your slack.

So far, you have not named any special rights or services that
homosexual couples are asking for that heterosexual couples do not
already have. Therefore, there is nothing special about what
homosexuals are asking for.

Mark Sebree
Tim McGaughy
2006-05-11 04:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
the GayBLT
Sounds like some weird sandwich.
Parsifal
2006-05-08 05:53:25 UTC
Permalink
*There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and
decided
*by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

I already told you that a majority of people here on alt.atheism wants
you out. Why aren't you complying if you believe so much in "the will
of the people"?
Roedy Green
2006-05-08 07:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?

These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Mark K. Bilbo
2006-05-08 14:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Previously, on alt.atheism, Roedy Green in episode
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and
decided by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
We could go back to the good old Catholic hating days of the US. I mean,
things like forced sterilization wouldn't interfere with their "free
exercise" of religion right? I mean, since the reich wing wants to get all
hyper-literal about the 1st Amendment and squawk "there's no wall in
there!" Well I don't see anything about letting a foreign nation (the
Vatican) own property in the US so let's seize anything they don't need to
do their basic ritual things with. Oh and we need loyalty oaths so they
can't hold public office because of their allegiance to a foreign
government.

None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!

Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."

So, from now on, attending any Protestant church of your choice *is
religious freedom. Wanting to have that Vatican run stuff is a *special
right. And Protestants founded this country and are in the majority so no
more of these minority cults pushing their agenda on us!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Roedy Green
2006-05-08 21:08:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."
That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."

On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.

The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.

see http://mindprod.com/ggloss/gaymarriage.html
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
newsguy
2006-05-09 04:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."
That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."
On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.
The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.


Just like with Hitler and homosexuals.
Alberich
2006-05-12 22:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by newsguy
Post by Roedy Green
On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."
That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."
On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.
The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.
Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement? The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?

Alberich
Dionisio
2006-05-13 03:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Yep. Ryan White would be alive today if he'd just have gotten married.

;-)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Dr. Lipschitz
2006-05-13 22:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the probability
of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Post by Dionisio
Yep. Ryan White would be alive today if he'd just have gotten married.
Or if gay promiscuous ass fuckers didn't contaminate the blood supply.
Post by Dionisio
;-)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act
redeemed." --Voltaire
No One
2006-05-13 23:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Dionisio
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the probability
of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Care to explain the high infection rate among hetersexuals in other
parts of the world?
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Dionisio
Yep. Ryan White would be alive today if he'd just have gotten married.
Or if gay promiscuous ass fuckers didn't contaminate the blood supply.
Gays don't go around purposely contaminating the blood supply. Any
"contamination" was due to everyone, including public health officials,
not knowing the risk factors in the early 1980s.
Boy Toy
2006-05-14 00:49:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 May 2006 22:25:13 GMT, "Dr. Lipschitz"
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the probability
of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Nonsense.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/women.htm

According to a 1998 CDC study of Job Corps entrants aged 16–21 years,
HIV prevalence among young women (2.8/1,000) was higher than among
young men (2.0/1,000). African American women in the study were 7
times as likely as white women and 8 times as likely as Hispanic women
to be HIV-positive [7]. Although another study found that HIV
diagnoses among women decreased slightly from 1984 through 1998, it
also found that as the youngest group (aged 15–19) initiated risk
behaviors, the number of HIV cases caused by injection drug use
increased, and the number acquired through heterosexual contact more
than doubled [8]. These data point to possible future increases in HIV
cases among women.
L. Michael Roberts
2006-05-14 13:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the probability
of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA
- where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are
spreading if "..the probability of transmission between man and woman is
close to nil"???
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!

<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Moishe Lipschitz, MD
2006-05-14 21:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.


is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not. And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Andrealphus
2006-05-14 21:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have
really nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because
the probability of transmission between man and woman is close to
nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the
USA - where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are
spreading if "..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
Post by L. Michael Roberts
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread
of AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of
black African men and their descendants in other countries are
bi-sexual who may classify themselves as straight but in reality are
not.
Any peer reviewed scientific citation you have to back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
And secondly, black Africans have no natural immunity against
the AIDS virus.
It has never been proven that anyone has natural immunties against the AIDS
virus.


In Europe it's estimated that between 10-25% of the
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
population has a genetic mutation which either prevents infection
with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the disease.
Estimated by who? Again, Any peer reviewed scientific citation you have to
back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
Good, then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide the
above requested citations.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
Moishe Lipschitz, MD
2006-05-15 02:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have
really nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because
the probability of transmission between man and woman is close to
nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the
USA - where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are
spreading if "..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
Post by L. Michael Roberts
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread
of AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of
black African men and their descendants in other countries are
bi-sexual who may classify themselves as straight but in reality are
not.
Any peer reviewed scientific citation you have to back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
And secondly, black Africans have no natural immunity against
the AIDS virus.
It has never been proven that anyone has natural immunties against the
AIDS virus.
In Europe it's estimated that between 10-25% of the
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
population has a genetic mutation which either prevents infection
with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the disease.
Estimated by who? Again, Any peer reviewed scientific citation you have
to back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
Good, then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide the
above requested citations.
Here's something the layman can understand.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=10




http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/interview.html
Post by Andrealphus
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Andrealphus
2006-05-15 11:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Andrealphus
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have
really nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because
the probability of transmission between man and woman is close to
nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the
USA - where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are
spreading if "..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
Post by L. Michael Roberts
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the
spread of AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very
large % of black African men and their descendants in other
countries are bi-sexual who may classify themselves as straight but
in reality are not.
Any peer reviewed scientific citation you have to back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
And secondly, black Africans have no natural immunity against
the AIDS virus.
It has never been proven that anyone has natural immunties against
the AIDS virus.
In Europe it's estimated that between 10-25% of the
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
population has a genetic mutation which either prevents infection
with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the disease.
Estimated by who? Again, Any peer reviewed scientific citation you
have to back that up?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by L. Michael Roberts
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is
most certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
Good, then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide
the above requested citations.
Here's something the layman can understand.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=10
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/interview.html
Soo.... You're basing your statements of fact on this as yet untested
theory?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
L. Michael Roberts
2006-05-14 21:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
Are you claiming that anal sex causes AIDS? Got any citations from the
mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals to back up that assertion?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not.
So? You can have sex 24/7 with an uninfected bisexual and never catch
anything. Do you have any citations from the mainstream, peer reviewed,
scientific journals to back up your claims of higher rates of
bisexuality in Africa?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
You are ignoring the well documented case of prostitutes in Kenya who
have had multiple, unprotected encounters with infected man and years
later, do NOT show an symptoms of HIV/AIDS.
BTW, do you have any citations from the mainstream, peer reviewed,
scientific journals to back up your claims genetic mutations in Europeans?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
Let me guess.. If I believe that, you have a tower in Paris I might be
interested in buying?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-14 23:09:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 17:26:29 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
Are you claiming that anal sex causes AIDS? Got any citations from the
mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals to back up that assertion?
In the US it's either homosexual males ass fucking one another or
sucking each other's dicks that transmits AIDS since the No.1 vector
of AIDS in the US has ALWAYS BEEN MALE HOMOSEXUALS.
The smart money including the CDC's is on ass-fucking homosexuals
being the primary transmitter. You pays your money
and you takes your chance.
Moishe Lipschitz, MD
2006-05-15 02:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading
if "..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
Are you claiming that anal sex causes AIDS? Got any citations from the
mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals to back up that assertion?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who
may classify themselves as straight but in reality are not.
So? You can have sex 24/7 with an uninfected bisexual and never catch
anything. Do you have any citations from the mainstream, peer reviewed,
scientific journals to back up your claims of higher rates of bisexuality
in Africa?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
And secondly, black Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS
virus. In Europe it's estimated that between 10-25% of the population has
a genetic mutation which either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or
only a mild form of the disease.
You are ignoring the well documented case of prostitutes in Kenya who have
had multiple, unprotected encounters with infected man
Assuming he had AIDS, perhaps he was just fucking her like a normal man and
not up the arse like a homo. Fluids in the vagina will destroy the AIDS
virus, not to mention the fact that the membrane is thicker and very
unlikely to allow the virus into the body.


and years
Post by L. Michael Roberts
later, do NOT show an symptoms of HIV/AIDS.
Now, you really can't be that simple minded. There is no disease which is
100% contagious! If you had sex with a person who had syphilis at a stage
where it was very contagious, your chance would still be only 1 in 10 of
getting it. AIDS is actually very difficult to transmit and in general it
takes quite a bit of exposure to the virus from an infected person before
contracting it. Of course this doesn't mean you can't contract it on the
first try.
Post by L. Michael Roberts
BTW, do you have any citations from the mainstream, peer reviewed,
scientific journals to back up your claims genetic mutations in Europeans?
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
Let me guess.. If I believe that, you have a tower in Paris I might be
interested in buying?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Boy Toy
2006-05-14 23:32:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:00:40 GMT, "Moishe Lipschitz, MD" <docinthe
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not. And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
From where? A diploma mill or a West Indies "medical school," which
one? You sure aren't a *real* M.D.
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-15 00:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boy Toy
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:00:40 GMT, "Moishe Lipschitz, MD" <docinthe
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not. And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
From where? A diploma mill or a West Indies "medical school," which
one? You sure aren't a *real* M.D.
Are you a "real" cock sucker?
Post by Boy Toy
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Moishe Lipschitz, MD
2006-05-15 02:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boy Toy
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:00:40 GMT, "Moishe Lipschitz, MD" <docinthe
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not. And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
From where? A diploma mill or a West Indies "medical school," which
one? You sure aren't a *real* M.D.
Uni of Edinburgh
Post by Boy Toy
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Boy Toy
2006-05-15 02:42:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:30:19 GMT, "Moishe Lipschitz, MD"
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Boy Toy
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:00:40 GMT, "Moishe Lipschitz, MD" <docinthe
Post by Moishe Lipschitz, MD
Post by Dr. Lipschitz
Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?
Of course it does, if you're monogamous. But normal people have really
nothing to fear regarding AIDS and sexual relations because the
probability of transmission between man and woman is close to nil.
Makes me wonder how all all those cases of HIV/AIDS outside of the USA -
where the majority of AIDS infections are heterosexuals - are spreading if
"..the probability of transmission between man and woman
Providing that they are not ass fucking like homos.
is
close to nil"???
I'll explain it to you then. There are 2 major reasons why the spread of
AIDS in Africa differs from that of Europeans. A very large % of black
African men and their descendants in other countries are bi-sexual who may
classify themselves as straight but in reality are not. And secondly, black
Africans have no natural immunity against the AIDS virus. In Europe it's
estimated that between 10-25% of the population has a genetic mutation which
either prevents infection with the AIDS virus or only a mild form of the
disease.
It also makes me wonder what you claim to be a "Dr." of as it is most
certainty *not* epidemiology or medicine!
I have an MD degree.
From where? A diploma mill or a West Indies "medical school," which
one? You sure aren't a *real* M.D.
Uni of Edinburgh
LOL!
f***@verizon.net
2006-05-15 16:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alberich
Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.
Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?
As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?
Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?
The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.

Susan
Alberich
2006-05-15 17:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Alberich
Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.
Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?
As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?
Heterosexuals are to blame for homosexuals not honoring commitments to
one another?
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?
The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.
You can call it what you will, but that doesn't answer my underlying
question, does it?

Alberich
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-15 20:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Alberich
Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.
Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?
As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?
Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?
The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.
Yours is denial based on stupidity.
Post by f***@verizon.net
Susan
Bush Lied, The Planet Died
2006-05-08 14:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
WORKS FOR ME!
Fester
2006-05-12 23:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
a***@home.com
2006-05-18 20:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.


***@home#1554
Fester
2006-05-18 23:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
Josh Rosenbluth
2006-05-18 23:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime, loving
partner. It does not allow a gay person to do likewise. You may call
that equality. I don't.

Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff North
2006-05-19 14:19:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:42:40 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality Josh
| >
| > The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
| > provides equality for all.
|
| That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
| unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime, loving
| partner.
Britney Spears and her 55hour marriage is a fine example of what
marriage is all about <ducking>
| It does not allow a gay person to do likewise. You may call
| that equality. I don't.
|
| Josh Rosenbluth
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-19 14:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff North
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:42:40 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality Josh
| >
| > The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
| > woman provides equality for all.
|
| That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
| unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime,
| loving partner.
Britney Spears and her 55hour marriage is a fine example of what
marriage is all about <ducking>
Don't forget those paragons of family values Newt
Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani.

Apparently adultery is a "stain on the marriage
institution", but only when Democrats do it.
L. Michael Roberts
2006-05-19 00:06:55 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Fester
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's look
at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed that
the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
Their view of equality looked like this:

| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------

This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not. The SCOTUS then
said that if races were to be treated equally, the chart would like like
this:

| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------

Now you are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally
in the marriage contract. A man may not marry another man just as a
woman my not marry another women thus you claim the sexes are treated
equally. Lets take a look at that in chart form:

| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| NO | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | NO | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------

Discrimination based on sex [gender] is outlawed just like
discrimination based on race. In order for the sexes to be treated
equally, there must not be any NO boxes on the chart:

| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------

So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Josh Rosenbluth
2006-05-19 00:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
woman provides equality for all.
Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's
look at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed
that the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not.
Of course Fester is wrong, but SCOTUS did not rule that a "NO"
automatically implied the races were being treated unequally.

Virginia argued that the above set of YES and NO cells automatically
implied the races were being treated equally. SCOTUS ruled that such an
automatic conclusion of equality is invalidated by a "NO". However, the
determination of whether or not there was equal treatment had to based
on other considerations beyond this matrix.

Josh Rosenbluth
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 05:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Facts

In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on
the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated
their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to
issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically
directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically
ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions
"does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution".


Opinion of the court

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that
a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not
applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the
right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction
based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference
in sex".


Review by the United States Supreme Court

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistant with binding precedent. "[Summary Decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. [L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

]
Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such, Baker establishes that a
State's decision to define marriage in whatever manner the state
desires does not offend the United States Constitution.


Subsequent history


Lockyer v. San Francisco

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
“for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until
the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S.
at p. 344.)That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)


Wilson v. Ake

Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court—which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.

In re Kandu

By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court.


Hernandez v Robles

The intermediate appellate Court in the State of New York also noted
the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the
controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection
claims on this issue.

Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 05:36:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.
Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.


***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in
Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to
support homosexuality.

August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the
suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over
conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.

The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly
authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws
proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech
and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of
the law journal. The article is currently only available through
fee-based database services.

Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing
criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing
discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly
to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ...
achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping
terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections
for speech and religious freedoms."

Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high
school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on
homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has
chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of
Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.

After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for
publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions
several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks
against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands,
Denmark, and others.

However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand
against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used
"hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior
from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.

In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay
legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation"
to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.

Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out
against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to
be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the
law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own
publications."

According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be
protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for
speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.

In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free
speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an
individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also
listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as
reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.

Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it
favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court
also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of
gays.

Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to
such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument
relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or
unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This
claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have
attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."

The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have
commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for
homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular
phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into
behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the
influence of the environment."

Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a
genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased
acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.

He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that
suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical
conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It
reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish
truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and
even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in
the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."
L. Michael Roberts
2006-05-19 12:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.
Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada
You keep posting this article... which we have all read... yet you fail
to answer the most important question because you know that the article
is based on a lie.
The important question is, where exactly in the Criminal Code of Canada
is the section which criminalises speech critical of homosexuality and
which suppresses "..free speech and religion in order to support
homosexuality"?? [The Criminal Code of Canada is available on the
Department of Justice web site at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html so you can look up and cite
the relevant section]
Until you can provide some proof - an article from some religionist who
has an axe to grind is *not* proof - you are a cowardly American idiot
who should keep his shit stained homophobic nose out of the business of
other countries.!

<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 16:33:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 08:12:22 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.
Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada
You keep posting this article... which we have all read... yet you fail
to answer the most important question because you know that the article
is based on a lie.
You are based in lying. The article is the narration of actual
experience -- you are a dyed in the wool fanatic who employed the
teachings of the BIG BOOK of HOMOSEXULA DOGMA (BBHD)
to Lie, Deny and Suppress the Truth about homosexuality.
Dionisio
2006-05-19 23:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada
Bwahahahaha!!!

I encased my irony meter in 10 feet of lead. Nyah, nyah, nyah!
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Fester
2006-05-19 09:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. Michael Roberts
<snip>
Post by Fester
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
woman provides equality for all.
Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's
look at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed
that the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not. The SCOTUS then
said that if races were to be treated equally, the chart would like like
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
Now you are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally
in the marriage contract. A man may not marry another man just as a
woman my not marry another women thus you claim the sexes are treated
| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| NO | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | NO | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination based on sex [gender] is outlawed just like
discrimination based on race. In order for the sexes to be treated
| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you have
not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.
The law recognizes difference in gender in many ways. As it must, since
such differences undeniably exist and are intrinsic to humanity.
Discrimination on gender is, in fact, present in many areas of law.
Furthermore, nothing about the history or intent of the 14th Amendment
suggests that the framers had homosexuality in mind whatsoever.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
Ray Fischer
2006-05-19 05:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
"The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
[of the same race] provides equality for all."
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
a***@home.com
2006-05-19 20:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.

***@home#1554
Dennis Kemmerer
2006-05-19 20:39:14 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.
More importantly, there are a number of unique protections conferred by
civil marriage statute that cannot be otherwise contractually obtained.

Some of the more important protections include permanent residency for
foreign-national spouses, immunity from testifying against one's spouse,
unquestioned second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns,
amnesty from inheritance tax, just to mention a few.
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 23:15:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:39:14 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.
More importantly, there are a number of unique protections conferred by
civil marriage statute that cannot be otherwise contractually obtained.
Some of the more important protections include permanent residency for
foreign-national spouses, immunity from testifying against one's spouse,
unquestioned second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns,
amnesty from inheritance tax, just to mention a few.
All of which the several states can elect to confer ONLY on the
marriage of one man and one woman. The SOCTUS has made
that very, very clear. Too bad you missed it. It would have saved
you posting a lot of untrue BULL SHIT.
Fester
2006-05-20 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.
I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).
--
<^}})<
/\/\
Dionisio
2006-05-19 00:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@home.com
Post by Fester
Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not a
democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it an
anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does that
mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things that are
subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be, whenever it may
be, whyever it may be.

There is the absolute of freedom of speech. It may not be impinged upon
sans compelling interest. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for
instance.)

There is the freedom of religion. It extends so far that the government
can not outlaw peyote for Native American practices. It can, however,
outlaw cannibalistic religions, or ones that advocate murder. (Thus
there are no Thugees.) Now while one might wish that the government
would find a compelling interest to go after religions that advocate
fraud and theft, said entities are also large campaign contributors; So,
it might take a while for that.

There is an absolute freedom to be free. While it took a while to be
finally recognized, slavery is not a right. It never was. But, some
things take a while to finally be fully acknowledged.

There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.

Marriage is not subject to a vote. And -- divorce rates aside -- it is
not subject to public whim. It is a right. Different race couples and
same race couples can marry. Different faith couples and same faith
couples can marry. Couples of divergent social classes, and those of the
same social class, each can marry. Folks of different ethnicities, as
well as those of the same ethnicity can marry.

Folks of differing genders can marry. People of the same gender get the
-- ahem -- "faithful" up in arms. Alas, America is not a theocracy. It
is a Democratic Republic. (As noted earlier in this overly-lengthy --
soon to be a book -- piece.)

This nation's citizens have rights, and they also have duties. The right
to an opinion is absolute. Inviolate. The right to force others to
conform to one's personal ideals, beliefs, or prejudices isn't a right.
Actually, we all have the duty to point that out. Some are just more
conscious of it than others.

It is odd that the people most likely to play the "patriotism card," the
"tradition card," or the "that minority offends my sensibilities card,"
are the ones that just don't seem to respect said duty; All the while
claiming that they have a duty. A "higher duty" at that.

Fascinatingly, a duty is also a fee, a price. The example of military
duty is one such conundrum. There is a duty to promote what is called
"unit cohesion." However, in times of war, the enlistment of homosexuals
takes a back seat to certain concerns. Curiously, we are in the midst of
an alleged "Culture War." Curiously, both sides are all to happy to
enlist folks of documented homosexual orientation.

Most curious.

Each faction insists that homosexuals are of value.

One side considers them to be of financial value. The other considers
them to be of human value.

It will be fascinating to see which side prevails.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Josh Rosenbluth
2006-05-19 00:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.
From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex couples
seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal precedent (Baker
v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Josh Rosenbluth
Dionisio
2006-05-19 23:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex
couples seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal
precedent (Baker v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex
couples from marrying.
Declining to hear is not the same as ruling against. Further, the
declination was not "with prejudice." (Moot point considering the venue,
but if they really wanted to set a precedent...)

As the case was declined, assertions for or against the "strict
scrutiny" are irrelevant. The reason for the decision left that
consideration up in the air.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Josh Rosenbluth
2006-05-20 00:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex
couples seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal
precedent (Baker v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex
couples from marrying.
Declining to hear is not the same as ruling against. Further, the
declination was not "with prejudice." (Moot point considering the venue,
but if they really wanted to set a precedent...)
As the case was declined, assertions for or against the "strict
scrutiny" are irrelevant. The reason for the decision left that
consideration up in the air.
No. SCOTUS did not deny certiorari. They dismissed the appeal for want
of a substantial federal question. That is with prejudice and sets
precedent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Josh Rosenbluth

Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 05:58:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Not if the state in which they vote says no:

Facts

In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on
the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated
their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to
issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically
directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically
ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions
"does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution".


Opinion of the court

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that
a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not
applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the
right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction
based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference
in sex".


Review by the United States Supreme Court

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistant with binding precedent. "[Summary Decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. [L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such, Baker establishes that a
State's decision to define marriage in whatever manner the state
desires does not offend the United States Constitution.


Subsequent history


Lockyer v. San Francisco

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
“for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until
the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S.
at p. 344.)That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)


Wilson v. Ake

Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court—which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.


In re Kandu

By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court.


Hernandez v Robles

The intermediate appellate Court in the State of New York also noted
the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the
controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection
claims on this issue.

Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-19 06:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Not if the state in which they vote says no
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 16:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Not if the state in which they vote says no
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice's War on Traditional
Marriage

Margaret Marshall's Anti-Family Juggernaut

by Stephen Baskerville
Posted Apr 13, 2004

For all the furor sparked by the Massachusetts ruling on homosexual
marriage, the full picture has yet to emerge. Strange to say, even
opponents of same-sex marriage have seriously underestimated what is
being done by Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts courts.

The ruling on gay marriage is only the tip of an iceberg. For all
their professed concern about "privacy" and "rights," Marshall and her
colleagues are staging nothing less than a political coup that
dramatically extends judicial and all governmental power into private
life. Mandating homosexual marriages is minor endeavor compared with
the more serious business of destroying heterosexual ones.

Family destruction is not some unfortunate by-product of a
well-intentioned quest for ever-expanding definitions of equality. It
results from a deliberate attack on families by judicial ideologues
who practice not justice but gender justice: an extremist ideology
which demands that heterosexual men be separated from their wives and
children and punished for their alleged crimes against women,
children, and gays.

To glimpse this we must look behind the headline cases to the hidden
underworld of family law. Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage
debate have pointed out, in the words of Mike McManus, that "divorce
is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by
gays." They are right in ways they may not realize. In divorce court,
the forcible destruction of the family is not some theoretical
prognostication; it is already the daily reality for millions of
citizens.

Marshall presides over a judiciary where families are forcibly
separated by government agents, where children are torn from their
parents with no justification given, and where parents are railroaded
into jail with no semblance of due process of law. In Marshall's court
system, litigants find their hearing tapes doctored, their case files
falsified, and themselves framed -- all with the full knowledge of
judges. Mothers are ordered to divorce their husbands or lose their
children. Fathers are forced to confess to crimes they have not
committed. Attorneys who speak out are disbarred. Citizens who are
minding their own business are summoned to court and ordered to pay
the inflated fees of attorneys they have not hired and jailed when
they are unable.

This is not all the work of Marshall alone, but her ruling is the
culmination of not simply judicial "activism" but a combination of
ideological extremism and judicial corruption that has transformed the
Massachusetts judiciary into a Soviet-like system of kangaroo courts.
In McLarnon v. Jokisch, Marshall invoked environmental law (and
applied it to divorce!) to grant immunity to government officials and
witnesses who use perjury, false allegations, and falsified documents
to remove children from their parents and criminalize the parents. In
a divorce case, the "defendant" - a parent who is being involuntarily
divorced - is now the only party in the courtroom without immunity.

The defendant in that case, Edward McLarnon, is a forensic
audio-visual investigator whose independently corroborated evidence of
doctored hearing tapes was published in December 2000 by the
Massachusetts News. His attorney Gregory Hession says the court
removed documents from his file, falsified the docket, and withheld
the case file for months. When McLarnon complained, he was assessed
$3,500 in attorneys' fees and jailed by the same judges whose tapes
were allegedly edited. Hession says he could find no interest in the
tampering from the Middlesex Probate Court and Probate Court
Register's office, the Middlesex District Attorney, the Massachusetts
Attorney General and Inspector General, the Judicial Conduct
Commission, or Marshall's Supreme Judicial Court. In fact, Marshall
herself later assessed McLarnon an additional $16,400 in attorneys'
fees (attorneys he had not hired), for which the state moved to seize
his house and car.

The Massachusetts News also broke the story of Heidi Howard, who was
told by the state Department of Social Services (DSS) to take out a
restraining order against her husband and divorce him. When she
refused, DSS seized her children and threatened to put them up for
adoption, for which the state receives federal funds. Neither parent
was ever charged with any wrongdoing. News reporter Nev Moore says
similar cases abound.

There is reason to believe her. Financial incentives and quotas
created by the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, championed by
the Clinton administration, have resulted in a "child protection
racket" rife with "baby stealing and baby selling," according to
Hession. "I am appalled by how many times this pattern is repeated."
In family court recently the hallway was clogged with parents and
children being adopted. "You could hardly walk. You had never seen
such mass adoptions before." Forty percent of Massachusetts children
adopted have gone to gay and lesbian couples, according to Democratic
state Senator Therese Murray, who supports gay marriage. It is not
difficult to see who will supply the children of gay "parents."

Harry Stewart is another victim of Massachusetts family justice, a lay
preacher who was jailed for six months for refusing to confess to
domestic violence. Stewart was never accused of any violence and may
have been a victim himself. Forced confessions and self-denunciation
are a standard requirement of "batterers'" programs.

These cases typify "the new Orwellian [judicial] system, which has no
protection for certain categories of unfavored perpetrators of
'crimes' against the state, such as parents," says Hession. "It is a
system skewed by political agendas, not truth...where government [is]
intruding into family autonomy, paternal authority, child raising, and
even minor family conflicts." Hession is risking his livelihood.
Barbara Johnson, an attorney and whistleblower who ran for governor on
a platform of court reform, is now being disbarred.

Such experiences "are depressingly common in Massachusetts," says
attorney David Grossack. "There seem to be networks of feminists tied
in with every courthouse in Massachusetts who can create a media storm
if a decision is unfavorable to them. Inexplicable decisions,
nonsensical restraining orders, and gender bias in the extreme are the
rule, not the exception."

Marshall claimed in her gay marriage ruling that the state
constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." Yet that
is precisely what she has created in married heterosexual parents,
especially fathers. "The hue and cry about civil rights for lesbians
and gays is particularly galling for Massachusetts' fathers," reads a
letter just published in several Massachusetts newspapers. "Our civil
and human rights have been ruthlessly violated by these same judges
for decades.... Margaret Marshall is always found on the same side of
the issue: ...against fathers and their inalienable right to the
custody, care, and protection of their children."

If opponents of same-sex unions truly wish to save marriage -- and
liberty -- they must wake up soon to the fact that homosexual marriage
will not destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage. It is
already rising from the ashes.

Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children.
No One
2006-05-19 16:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
... more lies from yet another of Bill Taylor's aliases.
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 23:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
... more lies from yet another of Bill Taylor's aliases.
Who is Bill Taylor and why do you fear him so much? Every post
that a homo or homophile can't refute is said to come from this
mysterious Bill Taylor -- when was the last time you saw a post from
this alleged "Bill Taylor"? I suggest that he is to you homosexuals
and your 'philes what the"Chupacabra" is to the uneducated of Mexico
and Central America; some thing that scares you shitless, that comes
out of the mist of night to torment them....poor babeeeeeeeeeees!

BTW -- Why did you stop posting as "Jenn" and "Bonnie B."? Are you
retiring those pantyhose or will you be wearing then again, crust and
all...you lying piece of dog shit.
curtsybear
2006-05-19 19:50:07 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.homosexuality.]
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
Sounds like you must really hate them judges what declared interracial
marriage legal too, eh? Oh, those damned law-making activist dictators!
--
Some things must be believed to be seen -- Unknown
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-19 21:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Not if the state in which they vote says no
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice's War on Traditional
Marriage
Margaret Marshall's Anti-Family Juggernaut
by Stephen Baskerville
Posted Apr 13, 2004
For all the furor sparked by the Massachusetts ruling on homosexual
marriage, the full picture has yet to emerge. Strange to say, even
opponents of same-sex marriage have seriously underestimated what is
being done by Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts courts.
The ruling on gay marriage is only the tip of an iceberg. For all
their professed concern about "privacy" and "rights," Marshall and her
colleagues are staging nothing less than a political coup that
dramatically extends judicial and all governmental power into private
life. Mandating homosexual marriages is minor endeavor compared with
the more serious business of destroying heterosexual ones.
Name one marriage destroyed by Massachusett's
"marriage destroying" gay marriage law.
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Are they the ones who spend their time
looking for the "gay agenda" in childrens
TV cartoons?
Boy Toy
2006-05-19 22:07:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 16:20:13 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Not if the state in which they vote says no
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice's War on Traditional
Marriage
Margaret Marshall's Anti-Family Juggernaut
by Stephen Baskerville
Posted Apr 13, 2004
For all the furor sparked by the Massachusetts ruling on homosexual
marriage, the full picture has yet to emerge. Strange to say, even
opponents of same-sex marriage have seriously underestimated what is
being done by Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts courts.
The ruling on gay marriage is only the tip of an iceberg. For all
their professed concern about "privacy" and "rights," Marshall and her
colleagues are staging nothing less than a political coup that
dramatically extends judicial and all governmental power into private
life. Mandating homosexual marriages is minor endeavor compared with
the more serious business of destroying heterosexual ones.
Name one marriage destroyed by Massachusett's
"marriage destroying" gay marriage law.
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Are they the ones who spend their time
looking for the "gay agenda" in childrens
TV cartoons?
It doesn't matter. These outfits are all inter-related to the point
of incestuousness. They figure if they have enough different umbrella
groups then people will be fooled into believing their support is
higher than it really is. It works for fundies and other groups who
never, ever, check things out.
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 23:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boy Toy
It works for fundies and other groups who
never, ever, check things out.
It works especially well for homosexuals groups who supplement it with
Lies, Denial and Suppression of the Truth.
Dionisio
2006-05-19 23:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Facts
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license.
Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-20 00:47:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:41:36 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.
Facts
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license.
Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?
They were homosexuals.

You better red it several times, boy, because it shots your argument
full of big, BIG holes.
Fester
2006-05-19 09:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by a***@home.com
Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be defined the way
you want it to be.
I think there are a few things in there about equality though.
Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not a
democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it an
anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does that
mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things that are
subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be, whenever it may
be, whyever it may be.
Spare me the elementary civics lesson. The word democracy may correctly
refer to any form of government that includes popular participation. It
is also used to refer to the direct, Athenian style of Democracy that
you are referring to.
Post by Dionisio
There is the absolute of freedom of speech. It may not be impinged upon
sans compelling interest. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for
instance.)
There is the freedom of religion. It extends so far that the government
can not outlaw peyote for Native American practices. It can, however,
outlaw cannibalistic religions, or ones that advocate murder. (Thus
there are no Thugees.) Now while one might wish that the government
would find a compelling interest to go after religions that advocate
fraud and theft, said entities are also large campaign contributors; So,
it might take a while for that.
There is an absolute freedom to be free. While it took a while to be
finally recognized, slavery is not a right. It never was. But, some
things take a while to finally be fully acknowledged.
There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.
Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry? Marriage is a
contract that the states are empowered to define. They may do so in any
manner they decide, provided it does not conflict with the Constitution.
Post by Dionisio
Marriage is not subject to a vote. And -- divorce rates aside -- it is
not subject to public whim. It is a right. Different race couples and
same race couples can marry. Different faith couples and same faith
couples can marry. Couples of divergent social classes, and those of the
same social class, each can marry. Folks of different ethnicities, as
well as those of the same ethnicity can marry.
Folks of differing genders can marry. People of the same gender get the
-- ahem -- "faithful" up in arms. Alas, America is not a theocracy. It
is a Democratic Republic. (As noted earlier in this overly-lengthy --
soon to be a book -- piece.)
This nation's citizens have rights, and they also have duties. The right
to an opinion is absolute. Inviolate. The right to force others to
conform to one's personal ideals, beliefs, or prejudices isn't a right.
Actually, we all have the duty to point that out. Some are just more
conscious of it than others.
It is odd that the people most likely to play the "patriotism card," the
"tradition card," or the "that minority offends my sensibilities card,"
are the ones that just don't seem to respect said duty; All the while
claiming that they have a duty. A "higher duty" at that.
Fascinatingly, a duty is also a fee, a price. The example of military
duty is one such conundrum. There is a duty to promote what is called
"unit cohesion." However, in times of war, the enlistment of homosexuals
takes a back seat to certain concerns. Curiously, we are in the midst of
an alleged "Culture War." Curiously, both sides are all to happy to
enlist folks of documented homosexual orientation.
Most curious.
Each faction insists that homosexuals are of value.
One side considers them to be of financial value. The other considers
them to be of human value.
It will be fascinating to see which side prevails.
Your ramblings produce nothing whatsoever of value to this discussion.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
Josh Rosenbluth
2006-05-19 12:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry? Marriage is a
contract that the states are empowered to define. They may do so in any
manner they decide, provided it does not conflict with the Constitution.
SCOTUS ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental Constitutional
right in Zablocki. Whether or not there is a fundamental
Constitutional right to marry the adult, othwerise unmarried, sole,
unrelated person of your choice remains to be seen.

Josh Rosenbluth
Dionisio
2006-05-19 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
Post by Dionisio
Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not
a democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it
an anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does
that mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things
that are subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be,
whenever it may be, whyever it may be.
Spare me the elementary civics lesson.
No. "Spare the rod, spoil the child."
Post by Fester
Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry?
Show me where there is a right to a minimum wage.
Post by Fester
Your ramblings produce nothing whatsoever of value to this discussion.
Hmm... So, you're contributing to "nothing of value." My, don't you feel
stupid.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Nick J.
2006-05-18 20:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
What compelling reason is there to not allow for same-sex marriage?
When any conservative can give me an answer to that question that isn't
hand-waving or religious claptrap, then I will give a damn about what
they have to say. Not before.
No 33 Secretary
2006-05-18 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick J.
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot
and decided by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so
afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
What compelling reason is there to not allow for same-sex marriage?
When any conservative can give me an answer to that question that
isn't hand-waving or religious claptrap, then I will give a damn about
what they have to say. Not before.
The only reason I've ever *heard* from conservatives is that (I'm
translating in to plain English, you understand - conservatives have a hard
time saying what they mean) those who object fear they are secretly (even
to themselves) gay and will immediately abandon their spouse of 40 years to
shack up with some gay lover the moment they can.

It seems like what they fear the most is that liberals are *right* about
how many people really are gay.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
Fester
2006-05-18 23:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by No 33 Secretary
Post by Nick J.
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot
and decided by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so
afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
What compelling reason is there to not allow for same-sex marriage?
When any conservative can give me an answer to that question that
isn't hand-waving or religious claptrap, then I will give a damn about
what they have to say. Not before.
The only reason I've ever *heard* from conservatives is that (I'm
translating in to plain English, you understand - conservatives have a hard
time saying what they mean) those who object fear they are secretly (even
to themselves) gay and will immediately abandon their spouse of 40 years to
shack up with some gay lover the moment they can.
Yes, yes, you have this magical ability read the minds of others. We're
all very impressed.
Post by No 33 Secretary
It seems like what they fear the most is that liberals are *right* about
how many people really are gay.
Speaking only for myself, I am in favor of allowing marriage to be
defined by the Democratic process. I don't care if the people vote to
allow marriage among same-sex couples or not. I am strongly opposed to
judges arbitrarily overruling the will of the people without a solid
Constitutional basis for doing so.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
L. Michael Roberts
2006-05-19 00:09:31 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Fester
Speaking only for myself, I am in favor of allowing marriage to be
defined by the Democratic process.
Except that fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of the
majority.
Post by Fester
I don't care if the people vote to
allow marriage among same-sex couples or not. I am strongly opposed to
judges arbitrarily overruling the will of the people without a solid
Constitutional basis for doing so.
Apparently you missed the part about all men being equal in your
constitution.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
Bitchin' Bonney
2006-05-19 05:38:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:09:31 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Except that fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of the
majority.
They are subject to the whim of the homosexually dominated government
in your 3rd world country though:

Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in
Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to
support homosexuality.

August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the
suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over
conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.

The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly
authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws
proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech
and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of
the law journal. The article is currently only available through
fee-based database services.

Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing
criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing
discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly
to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ...
achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping
terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections
for speech and religious freedoms."

Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high
school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on
homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has
chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of
Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.

After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for
publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions
several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks
against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands,
Denmark, and others.

However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand
against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used
"hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior
from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.

In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay
legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation"
to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.

Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out
against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to
be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the
law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own
publications."

According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be
protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for
speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.

In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free
speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an
individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also
listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as
reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.

Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it
favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court
also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of
gays.

Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to
such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument
relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or
unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This
claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have
attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."

The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have
commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for
homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular
phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into
behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the
influence of the environment."

Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a
genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased
acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.

He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that
suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical
conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It
reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish
truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and
even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in
the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."
Fester
2006-05-19 09:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. Michael Roberts
<snip>
Post by Fester
Speaking only for myself, I am in favor of allowing marriage to be
defined by the Democratic process.
Except that fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of the
majority.
The right to marry is so "fundamental" it isn't even mentioned in the
Constitution. Therefore, by the 10th Amendment, it is up to the states
to regulate how they choose.
Post by L. Michael Roberts
Post by Fester
I don't care if the people vote to allow marriage among same-sex
couples or not. I am strongly opposed to judges arbitrarily
overruling the will of the people without a solid Constitutional basis
for doing so.
Apparently you missed the part about all men being equal in your
constitution.
I haven't missed a thing that is *actually there*. All that I've missed
out on are the wild unsupportable extrapolations that you find between
the lines.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
No 33 Secretary
2006-05-19 16:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. Michael Roberts
<snip>
Post by Fester
Speaking only for myself, I am in favor of allowing marriage to be
defined by the Democratic process.
Except that fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of the
majority.
Post by Fester
I don't care if the people vote to
allow marriage among same-sex couples or not. I am strongly opposed to
judges arbitrarily overruling the will of the people without a solid
Constitutional basis for doing so.
Apparently you missed the part about all men being equal in your
constitution.
So you'd argue that gay men can marry, but lesbians can't?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
Boy Toy
2006-05-18 23:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick J.
Post by Fester
Post by Roedy Green
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.
What compelling reason is there to not allow for same-sex marriage?
When any conservative can give me an answer to that question that isn't
hand-waving or religious claptrap, then I will give a damn about what
they have to say. Not before.
It's fear of the unknown. They don't understand it, don't wish to
learn about it, and are therefore easy prey for charlatans who will
feed their fears with lies in order to get their money or votes.
newsguy
2006-05-09 03:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
If you bigots had it your way blacks would still not be able to marry a

white, because 97 percent of the population did not want blacks
marrying whites. It is tyranny of the majority. Also this points out
the
USA is a nation of bigots, for the bigots.

We the bigots of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
biased union,
establish injustice, insure domestic discontent, provide for the common
religious
defense, promote the general hatred, and secure the blessings of
majority to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the
Aryan Nation of the United States of America.

"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place where a klansman
can feel at home."
---David Duke, 2002

Should read

"The fact is that the USA is still the only place where a klansman
can feel at home."
---David Duke, 2002
a***@home.com
2006-05-18 20:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
Another minority being deprived of its rights?

***@home#1554

<snip>
Loading...