Discussion:
Initiative to ban gay marriage is on ballot
(too old to reply)
zero tolerance
2008-06-03 09:55:46 UTC
Permalink
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/BAMJ1125FV.DT
L&type=politics

(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen's certification of the initiative, which
would amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, comes as no surprise to either side of the same-sex
marriage issue.

When backers of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to
make the ballot, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures, the only
question was when the certification would come.

"We're not surprised by this at all and have been getting ready to run a
very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior campaign
consultant to the Equality for All effort, which will try to defeat the
initiative. "This (initiative) asks California voters to take away a
fundamental right from same-sex couples, and we don't believe they are
willing to do that."

Signatures for the proposed amendment were filed with county clerks
across the state in late April, weeks before the state Supreme Court
overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measure that also banned same-sex
marriage and passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If the new
amendment is passed, it will overturn the state court's ruling.

Opponents of same-sex marriage already are arguing that the court should
not have overturned the vote of the people on same-sex marriage and have
said they are confident that their fall campaign will draw support not
only from voters in California but from citizens across the nation.

California officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 decision have
called on the court to delay that action until after the November
election, but no decision on that request has been made.

A Field Poll released last week showed that for the first time in 30
years of polling on the gay marriage question, a majority of
Californians now supports same-sex marriage and a more voters are
unwilling to overturn the state Supreme Court decision.

The same-sex marriage ban was one of four measures approved for the
ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justice matters and
a third setting new rules for renewable energy. That brings the number
of measures on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting
certification.
The Master
2008-06-03 13:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.

So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
No One
2008-06-03 15:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
The Master
2008-06-03 15:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance" has no
political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How silly of me to
assume otherwise...

I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...

Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not get
married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular reason,
that's all... Are there any?

I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely secular
reason for the ban.
SneakyP
2008-06-03 20:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article
about an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the
November ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance"
has no political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How
silly of me to assume otherwise...
I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...
Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not
get married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular
reason, that's all... Are there any?
I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely
secular reason for the ban.
There is no constitutional protection or determination for how people
choose to live their lives. Someone is trying to legislate religion on
people. But some government regulates it by including it on forms - IRS.
Married status, for instance. Yet, what is the definition of "married"
according to them?



Perhaps some zealots need a good swift kick into real life.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
anonymous
2008-06-04 07:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance" has no
political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How silly of me to
assume otherwise...
I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...
Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not get
married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular reason,
that's all... Are there any?
I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely secular
reason for the ban.
The reason is simple. Power and control. When women got the vote, they
no longer had marriage vows that said they were owned by men as a
chattel or property. In Canada it used to be that people could call
everyone horrible names like fag or gay in a demeaning way, but when
homosexuals got the right to legally marry, it then became in most of
normal society unacceptable to call people such names in a derogatory
way. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it has become less
frequent. Same with women. It used to be that people could put down
women but now it is totally unacceptable to do that. The handicapped
never used to have rights either. They were hidden way in the house for
a lifetime prevented from sports, travel, or a normal life. Not so
anymore.

Canada is a good example of what happens when homosexuals get the right
to marry. Nothing happens. The same thing when women got the vote.
Nothing happened. When I was a young man in Canada, there were no women
judges. Now lots of judges are women so society is better represented
in the legal system.

It used to be that women had to marry men but that is no longer the
case. They can take a husband or not. Heterosexual men don't like the
ideas that they aren't taken as the answer to a woman's problems. The
answer to anyone's problems, of course, is education. The world's
problems and society's problems are totally related to over population
and the fact that women have to work to provide income to the family.
Raising children is very tricky, and requires a lot of work, detail and
attention to be successful. Putting children in day-care or in the
hands of strangers or others no matter how caring is risky business.
Raising children by cell phone, and leaving them with the tv or the
internet is not the answer. The middle class are struggling like never
before, travelling long distances to work. The costs of being able to
provide
sporting experiences to children is very expensive. Travelling to
Europe even by backpack is very expensive, too, unlike previous
generations.

Just today I had lunch with a woman who indicated her sister was
considering moving to a foreign country to live with a guy whom she
liked/loved very much over the last year. Divorced 2 years earlier, the
sister said she works all day and never gets to see her very young
children so this opportunity would enable her to be at home with her
kids as I understand it. Classic example of the struggles of women,
children, divorce and coping in a very difficult world. Remember 45
percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why would any struggling group
in society want a better life for homosexuals when they were hurting.

Only educated people know that permitting a better life for everyone in
society benefits all or everyone directly or indirectly. Not all people
think that way, especially those hurting.

Heterosexual society for the most part trashes homosexual society.
Homosexual society never trashes heteroseuxal society. Heterosxual
society raves about marriage, but never talks about how good married
life is. A woman talks about getting married like it is a gift from the
Gods then after marriage she shuts up or complains for the rest of her
life. Parents have to keep their mouth shut about marriage. They
effectively have to lie. We teach chldren that you can't get something
for nothing. Yet, marriage is just that. Men think they can have a sex
whenever they want if they marry the right woman. Not remotely true.
Women think that if they marry the right guy, that live will be bliss.
It is pretty hard for any relationshp to be bliss if a man has to spend
half or more than half his paycheck on his wife and kids and then get
drunk and beg for sex. But that is not now society describes married
life inside or outside the church, or the movies. Enough said.
///
cyrus
2008-06-04 13:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by The Master
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance" has no
political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How silly of me to
assume otherwise...
I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...
Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not get
married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular reason,
that's all... Are there any?
I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely secular
reason for the ban.
The reason is simple. Power and control. When women got the vote, they
no longer had marriage vows that said they were owned by men as a
chattel or property. In Canada it used to be that people could call
everyone horrible names like fag or gay in a demeaning way, but when
homosexuals got the right to legally marry, it then became in most of
normal society unacceptable to call people such names in a derogatory
way. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it has become less
frequent. Same with women. It used to be that people could put down
women but now it is totally unacceptable to do that. The handicapped
never used to have rights either. They were hidden way in the house for
a lifetime prevented from sports, travel, or a normal life. Not so
anymore.
Canada is a good example of what happens when homosexuals get the right
to marry. Nothing happens. The same thing when women got the vote.
Nothing happened. When I was a young man in Canada, there were no women
judges. Now lots of judges are women so society is better represented
in the legal system.
It used to be that women had to marry men but that is no longer the
case. They can take a husband or not. Heterosexual men don't like the
ideas that they aren't taken as the answer to a woman's problems. The
answer to anyone's problems, of course, is education. The world's
problems and society's problems are totally related to over population
and the fact that women have to work to provide income to the family.
Raising children is very tricky, and requires a lot of work, detail and
attention to be successful. Putting children in day-care or in the
hands of strangers or others no matter how caring is risky business.
Raising children by cell phone, and leaving them with the tv or the
internet is not the answer. The middle class are struggling like never
before, travelling long distances to work. The costs of being able to
provide
sporting experiences to children is very expensive. Travelling to
Europe even by backpack is very expensive, too, unlike previous
generations.
Just today I had lunch with a woman who indicated her sister was
considering moving to a foreign country to live with a guy whom she
liked/loved very much over the last year. Divorced 2 years earlier, the
sister said she works all day and never gets to see her very young
children so this opportunity would enable her to be at home with her
kids as I understand it. Classic example of the struggles of women,
children, divorce and coping in a very difficult world. Remember 45
percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why would any struggling group
in society want a better life for homosexuals when they were hurting.
Only educated people know that permitting a better life for everyone in
society benefits all or everyone directly or indirectly. Not all people
think that way, especially those hurting.
Heterosexual society for the most part trashes homosexual society.
Homosexual society never trashes heteroseuxal society. Heterosxual
society raves about marriage, but never talks about how good married
life is. A woman talks about getting married like it is a gift from the
Gods then after marriage she shuts up or complains for the rest of her
life. Parents have to keep their mouth shut about marriage. They
effectively have to lie. We teach chldren that you can't get something
for nothing. Yet, marriage is just that. Men think they can have a sex
whenever they want if they marry the right woman. Not remotely true.
Women think that if they marry the right guy, that live will be bliss.
It is pretty hard for any relationshp to be bliss if a man has to spend
half or more than half his paycheck on his wife and kids and then get
drunk and beg for sex. But that is not now society describes married
life inside or outside the church, or the movies. Enough said.
///
you sir are quite dillusional, your choices of "all" and "never" does
not strengthen your rant they only act to expose you as an extremest.
anonymous
2008-06-05 02:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyrus
Post by anonymous
Post by The Master
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance" has no
political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How silly of me to
assume otherwise...
I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...
Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not get
married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular reason,
that's all... Are there any?
I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely secular
reason for the ban.
The reason is simple. Power and control. When women got the vote, they
no longer had marriage vows that said they were owned by men as a
chattel or property. In Canada it used to be that people could call
everyone horrible names like fag or gay in a demeaning way, but when
homosexuals got the right to legally marry, it then became in most of
normal society unacceptable to call people such names in a derogatory
way. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it has become less
frequent. Same with women. It used to be that people could put down
women but now it is totally unacceptable to do that. The handicapped
never used to have rights either. They were hidden way in the house for
a lifetime prevented from sports, travel, or a normal life. Not so
anymore.
Canada is a good example of what happens when homosexuals get the right
to marry. Nothing happens. The same thing when women got the vote.
Nothing happened. When I was a young man in Canada, there were no women
judges. Now lots of judges are women so society is better represented
in the legal system.
It used to be that women had to marry men but that is no longer the
case. They can take a husband or not. Heterosexual men don't like the
ideas that they aren't taken as the answer to a woman's problems. The
answer to anyone's problems, of course, is education. The world's
problems and society's problems are totally related to over population
and the fact that women have to work to provide income to the family.
Raising children is very tricky, and requires a lot of work, detail and
attention to be successful. Putting children in day-care or in the
hands of strangers or others no matter how caring is risky business.
Raising children by cell phone, and leaving them with the tv or the
internet is not the answer. The middle class are struggling like never
before, travelling long distances to work. The costs of being able to
provide
sporting experiences to children is very expensive. Travelling to
Europe even by backpack is very expensive, too, unlike previous
generations.
Just today I had lunch with a woman who indicated her sister was
considering moving to a foreign country to live with a guy whom she
liked/loved very much over the last year. Divorced 2 years earlier, the
sister said she works all day and never gets to see her very young
children so this opportunity would enable her to be at home with her
kids as I understand it. Classic example of the struggles of women,
children, divorce and coping in a very difficult world. Remember 45
percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why would any struggling group
in society want a better life for homosexuals when they were hurting.
Only educated people know that permitting a better life for everyone in
society benefits all or everyone directly or indirectly. Not all people
think that way, especially those hurting.
Heterosexual society for the most part trashes homosexual society.
Homosexual society never trashes heteroseuxal society. Heterosxual
society raves about marriage, but never talks about how good married
life is. A woman talks about getting married like it is a gift from the
Gods then after marriage she shuts up or complains for the rest of her
life. Parents have to keep their mouth shut about marriage. They
effectively have to lie. We teach chldren that you can't get something
for nothing. Yet, marriage is just that. Men think they can have a sex
whenever they want if they marry the right woman. Not remotely true.
Women think that if they marry the right guy, that live will be bliss.
It is pretty hard for any relationshp to be bliss if a man has to spend
half or more than half his paycheck on his wife and kids and then get
drunk and beg for sex. But that is not now society describes married
life inside or outside the church, or the movies. Enough said.
///
you sir are quite dillusional, your choices of "all" and "never" does
not strengthen your rant they only act to expose you as an extremest.
I read over what I wrote a few days ago posted here and the only only
time I used the word
""never" is when I said the sister never gets to see her kids because
she is working. Yes,
it is demonstrative and inaccurate but the idea is clear. I never used
"all".

I would much prefer you tell me how it is!
cyrus
2008-06-06 06:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by cyrus
Post by anonymous
Post by The Master
Post by No One
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
The guy you just replied to simply cut and pasted a news article about
an initiative that got enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. So, what's there for him to tell you? :-)
Ah, my mistake. Clearly, someone with the nick of "zero tolerance" has no
political agenda when it comes to homosexual marrage. How silly of me to
assume otherwise...
I would therefore like to direct my previous question to anyone who is
against gay marrage...
Please tell me WITHOUT USING RELIGIOUS REASONS, why gays should not get
married. I really really really want to know... Just one secular reason,
that's all... Are there any?
I have heard religious reasons, but I have yet to hear of a truely secular
reason for the ban.
The reason is simple. Power and control. When women got the vote, they
no longer had marriage vows that said they were owned by men as a
chattel or property. In Canada it used to be that people could call
everyone horrible names like fag or gay in a demeaning way, but when
homosexuals got the right to legally marry, it then became in most of
normal society unacceptable to call people such names in a derogatory
way. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it has become less
frequent. Same with women. It used to be that people could put down
women but now it is totally unacceptable to do that. The handicapped
never used to have rights either. They were hidden way in the house for
a lifetime prevented from sports, travel, or a normal life. Not so
anymore.
Canada is a good example of what happens when homosexuals get the right
to marry. Nothing happens. The same thing when women got the vote.
Nothing happened. When I was a young man in Canada, there were no women
judges. Now lots of judges are women so society is better represented
in the legal system.
It used to be that women had to marry men but that is no longer the
case. They can take a husband or not. Heterosexual men don't like the
ideas that they aren't taken as the answer to a woman's problems. The
answer to anyone's problems, of course, is education. The world's
problems and society's problems are totally related to over population
and the fact that women have to work to provide income to the family.
Raising children is very tricky, and requires a lot of work, detail and
attention to be successful. Putting children in day-care or in the
hands of strangers or others no matter how caring is risky business.
Raising children by cell phone, and leaving them with the tv or the
internet is not the answer. The middle class are struggling like never
before, travelling long distances to work. The costs of being able to
provide
sporting experiences to children is very expensive. Travelling to
Europe even by backpack is very expensive, too, unlike previous
generations.
Just today I had lunch with a woman who indicated her sister was
considering moving to a foreign country to live with a guy whom she
liked/loved very much over the last year. Divorced 2 years earlier, the
sister said she works all day and never gets to see her very young
children so this opportunity would enable her to be at home with her
kids as I understand it. Classic example of the struggles of women,
children, divorce and coping in a very difficult world. Remember 45
percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why would any struggling group
in society want a better life for homosexuals when they were hurting.
Only educated people know that permitting a better life for everyone in
society benefits all or everyone directly or indirectly. Not all people
think that way, especially those hurting.
Heterosexual society for the most part trashes homosexual society.
Homosexual society never trashes heteroseuxal society. Heterosxual
society raves about marriage, but never talks about how good married
life is. A woman talks about getting married like it is a gift from the
Gods then after marriage she shuts up or complains for the rest of her
life. Parents have to keep their mouth shut about marriage. They
effectively have to lie. We teach chldren that you can't get something
for nothing. Yet, marriage is just that. Men think they can have a sex
whenever they want if they marry the right woman. Not remotely true.
Women think that if they marry the right guy, that live will be bliss.
It is pretty hard for any relationshp to be bliss if a man has to spend
half or more than half his paycheck on his wife and kids and then get
drunk and beg for sex. But that is not now society describes married
life inside or outside the church, or the movies. Enough said.
///
you sir are quite dillusional, your choices of "all" and "never" does
not strengthen your rant they only act to expose you as an extremest.
I read over what I wrote a few days ago posted here and the only only
time I used the word
""never" is when I said the sister never gets to see her kids because
she is working. Yes,
it is demonstrative and inaccurate but the idea is clear. I never used
"all".
I would much prefer you tell me how it is!
from your text
Heterosexual men don't like the

"Heterosexual society for the most part trashes homosexual society."

"Homosexual society never trashes heteroseuxal society" (I guess you
missed "never")

"Parents have to keep their mouth shut about marriage"

"Women think that if they marry the right guy, that live will be bliss."

you see it doesn't say some of heterosexual society or some women or
some parents you include them all

"Only educated people know that permitting a better life for everyone in
Post by anonymous
Post by cyrus
society benefits all or everyone directly or indirectly.
charley
2008-06-03 19:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Are you a lawyer because you sound like one!!!
The Master
2008-06-03 21:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by charley
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Are you a lawyer because you sound like one!!!
Ummm... Is that good or bad that you think I sound like a lawyer?

They say that a lawyer is the larva form of a politician. And we know
that politics come from the root words poly (many) and ticks (blood
sucking parasites)...
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by charley
Post by The Master
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Are you a lawyer because you sound like one!!!
Ummm... Is that good or bad that you think I sound like a lawyer?
They say that a lawyer is the larva form of a politician. And we know
that politics come from the root words poly (many) and ticks (blood
sucking parasites)...
No, lawyers are for idiots who didn't spent the time to read the
contract. If men and women knew marriage and divorce laws like they
know sports, they wouldn't get married. Remember a contract is to
protect the person to insisted on the contract when things go wrong, be
it a credit card company or a spouse.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-03 20:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.

But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?

Here's the issue: the state has *always* regulated marriage, and the
courts have always recognized and validated at least some of the
regulation. So, the question for you is, are you advocating the total
abolition of all state regulation of marriage? That is, should any
number of persons, irrespective of degree of kinship, be allowed to
marry if they have attained the age of majority, or if they are minors
and have permission from anyone authorized to give the permission? If
you answer "yes", then you're done, although I have to wonder about
Emerson's dictum concerning foolish consistency being applicable to you.
If you answer "no", then you've got a lot of difficult explaining to do.
The Master
2008-06-03 21:44:35 UTC
Permalink
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse to
allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
My personal opinion? No, I don't think the state should have that power.
Here's the issue: the state has *always* regulated marriage, and the courts
have always recognized and validated at least some of the regulation.
But then you have equal protection under the law. There are rights
recognized in a married couple, that in most states are not recognized in
"domestic partnerships." A gay union should have the same rights as a
hetrosexual union.
So,
the question for you is, are you advocating the total abolition of all state
regulation of marriage?
Mind you, you are also talking to a hard core libertarian, who would like
to see the abolishment of most state and federal regulations... Keep that
in mind.
LauraM
2008-06-03 22:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us:  should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child?  Or how about this:  in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities. And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience. I find no valid
reason why gays can't marry.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-03 23:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/ The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
So far, I can't find any, either. I'm still on the fence about it, but
I'm heavily leaning toward saying I support it.

But a social majoritarian view that something is immoral has been held
by the courts to be an acceptable basis for some laws. Justice Scalia
makes quite a lot of mention of this in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html). In that
dissent, he also makes reference to state regulation of marriage,
presciently foreseeing that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are
threatened. Scalia writes:

Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied
on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that
certain sexual behavior is "immoral and unacceptable" constitutes a
rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d
944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s
prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that "[t]he
crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a
legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny");
Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the
proposition that "[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with
regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable
harms"); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136
(CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and
regulations banning from military service those who engage in
homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43,
53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that "a person has no
constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least
outside of marriage"); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473
(Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional
right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers
when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569
(1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered "a
substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,"
ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J.,
concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex
marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery,
fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only
in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every
single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision;
the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to
exclude them from its holding.


Scalia's complaint in Lawrence was that the Court tossed out a prior
conclusion regarding queer sodomy in Bowers without understanding the
basis for the decision in Bowers, and seemingly without realizing just
how extensively Bowers was cited in other decisions regarding laws
trying to promote public morality. As he notes, the other decisions
that cited Bowers *all* recognized a constitutional power of the state
to legislate to promote public morality.

You might personally think the state ought not try to legislate
regarding public morality, or you might think that some (but not all) of
the laws regarding public morality are not warranted, but the legal
underpinnings of our society hold, at present, that legislating to
protect or support public morality is a legitimate function of
government. If people strongly believe that homosexual marriage is
immoral, it may be within the constitutional purview of the state to
prohibit it.
LauraM
2008-06-04 02:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us:  should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child?  Or how about this:  in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships.  However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/  The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Hmm...good poin.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
I don't agree here. Just as there are age limits for drinking,
driving and voting; there should be an age limit for marriage. Under
your scenario, then there should be no age restrictions for drinking,
driving, etc.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
So far, I can't find any, either.  I'm still on the fence about it, but
I'm heavily leaning toward saying I support it.
<respectfully snipped the rest in the interest of saving space>
Emerson Wainwright
2008-06-04 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us:  should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child?  Or how about this:  in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships.  However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/  The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Hmm...good poin.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
I don't agree here.  Just as there are age limits for drinking,
driving and voting; there should be an age limit for marriage.
I think people shouldn't get married before.. well, at least 26.
Post by LauraM
 Under
your scenario, then there should be no age restrictions for drinking,
driving, etc.
Driving should be: 21. Drinking: well, they're gonna do it anyway
in this culture... educate them!
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 06:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emerson Wainwright
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/ The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Hmm...good poin.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
I don't agree here. Just as there are age limits for drinking,
driving and voting; there should be an age limit for marriage.
I think people shouldn't get married before.. well, at least 26.
Oh, hell, there are lots of things like that. I don't know about
getting married before 26, but I don't think people should have kids
before their early to mid 30s. I got married for the first time and had
my only child at age 47 (only weeks away from 48 when son was born);
that was too late, although I wouldn't give him up for anything.

Here's another: I don't think you should buy a music album or CD until
it's at least 20 years old. The vast majority of music I bought when it
was contemporary doesn't sound good any more. The Doors, which I liked
a lot when I was in high school in the late 1960s, sound like shit
today. Hendrix, on the other hand, sounds better than ever. (CSN, the
Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, the Beau Brummels - these all held up well.)
Post by Emerson Wainwright
Post by LauraM
Under
your scenario, then there should be no age restrictions for drinking,
driving, etc.
Driving should be: 21.
I don't know if it should be that high, but it should be higher than
most states allow. In California in the 1960s and before, and perhaps
for some time later, it was 16. I thought I was ready then, but I
realize now probably not. I didn't have any accidents or tickets
between 16 and 18; possibly a matter of luck. Californian teenagers can
still get driving licenses at age 16, but I think there are
restrictions, including a severely curtailed permission to drive with
passengers, and in some cases time-of-day restrictions. That's good.
Post by Emerson Wainwright
Drinking: well, they're gonna do it anyway
in this culture... educate them!
The experience with lowering the minimum age for alcohol purchase in the
1970s was not a happy one. Teenage vehicular accident and death rates
shot through the roof, and alcohol was unambiguously implicated. Rates
dropped when the feds under Reagan threatened to withhold federal
highway funds from states that didn't raise the legal drinking age to
21. I don't like that way of enforcing values - the feds used to do the
same thing with the 55 mph speed limit - but there's no denying the
cause-and-effect of teens and alcohol and vehicular deaths.

In terms of legal consistency, one thing I don't get is how alcohol
purchase can be separated as from other goods as it is. With respect to
driving, every state in the union declares that driving is a privilege,
not a right, as the roads and highways are (mostly) publicly provided,
and the state as owner can determine who may drive on them (I wonder
what would happen if a private toll road operator said that 14-year-olds
could operate cars on their roads.) But buying alcohol is entering into
a contract, and upon attaining the age of majority (18 in every state,
as far as I know), you can enter into contracts. An 18-year-old can buy
or sell real estate, buy a car, buy or sell stock, obtain credit
accounts, take out an insurance policy, seek and obtain medical care,
get a medical drug prescription filled, all without a parent's consent.
I can't think of any product, apart from alcohol, where some age limit
higher than the age of majority is in effect. I'm curious as to the
legal rationale for it.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 04:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/ The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Hmm...good poin.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
I don't agree here. Just as there are age limits for drinking,
driving and voting; there should be an age limit for marriage.
But there isn't a clear age limit. There's an age limit to get married
without asking a parent's or guardian's permission - 18 in most,
possibly all, states - but it's possible for a minor to get married if
lawful permission by a parent or guardian is given.
Post by LauraM
Under your scenario, then there should be no age restrictions for drinking,
driving, etc.
No, I didn't suggest that at all. I'm talking about the law. At
present, the law in some states allows for minors to marry with the
permission of a parent or guardian. Maybe you think it shouldn't be
that way, but it is.

So, *given* that the law does allow for that, do you think a minor child
should be allowed to marry his or her own parent, when that parent is
the one giving the permission? Or, let's assume it's a minor male child
who wishes to marry his divorced mother, and his father gives the
permission; or a minor female child who wishes to marry her divorced
father, and the mother gives her permission. Would you say the state
should allow that? If not, then you have agreed that the state may
regulate marriage - all we're quibbling about now are the details.

My point in bringing all this up is, when confronted with the idea of
marriage between queers, some people who are in favor of it argue that
the state has "no business" regulating marriage; but when you then
present them with some specific other instances of prohibited marriages,
they try to allow for some regulation. Either the state may regulate
marriage, or it may not. If it may, then it may be legally permissible
for it to regulate some marriages you'd prefer to allow right out of
existence.
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
So far, I can't find any, either. I'm still on the fence about it, but
I'm heavily leaning toward saying I support it.
<respectfully snipped the rest in the interest of saving space>
LauraM
2008-06-04 04:49:29 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza
No, I didn't suggest that at all.  I'm talking about the law.  At
present, the law in some states allows for minors to marry with the
permission of a parent or guardian.  Maybe you think it shouldn't be
that way, but it is.
So, *given* that the law does allow for that, do you think a minor child
should be allowed to marry his or her own parent, when that parent is
the one giving the permission?  Or, let's assume it's a minor male child
who wishes to marry his divorced mother, and his father gives the
permission; or a minor female child who wishes to marry her divorced
father, and the mother gives her permission.  Would you say the state
should allow that?  If not, then you have agreed that the state may
regulate marriage - all we're quibbling about now are the details.
My point in bringing all this up is, when confronted with the idea of
marriage between queers, some people who are in favor of it argue that
the state has "no business" regulating marriage; but when you then
present them with some specific other instances of prohibited marriages,
they try to allow for some regulation.  Either the state may regulate
marriage, or it may not.  If it may, then it may be legally permissible
for it to regulate some marriages you'd prefer to allow right out of
existence.
I understand what you're saying. Evidentally I'm for some
regulation. I'm not a Libratarian where I believe there should be no
government. I also think that things aren't black and white and that
it takes time to grow into new ideas. New ideas are usually
implemented over time with things that have happened beforehand to lay
the groundwork. We've been exposed (or at least I have since I live
in the Bay Area) to gay lifestyle in the mainstream for quite some
time. I think we're ready for the next step which is to make gay
marriage legal. We have not, however, been exposed to sons marrying
their mothers, for example, at all. Or at least *I* haven't. I can't
imagine believing that would be okay in the future, but one never
knows. We're not ready now, that's for sure!
Emerson Wainwright
2008-06-04 02:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us:  should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child?  Or how about this:  in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships.  However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/  The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
So far, I can't find any, either.  I'm still on the fence about it, but
I'm heavily leaning toward saying I support it.
I wonder -- seriously -- why you would be sitting on that fence....

I was too, for awhile. I'm gay. I had no idea that married couples
had so many rights and responsibilities accorded them, simply for
getting legally married.

And then I thought, really, in response to people saying that same-sex
marriage would somehow "desecrate" marriage... I've asked, for years:
HOW? How is a woman marrying a woman somehow going to take away from
YOUR marriage? And with a 50% divorce rate, and the Brit Spears
fiasco... why should we consider that straight couples take marriage
any more seriously than gays?

The answer is always rooted in religion. Yet religion -- Judeo-
Christian religion -- took OVER marriage, which had previously been a
legal institution.

In any event, CIVIL marriage has NEVER infringed upon what Judeo-
Christian religions believe to be their right (or rite). Marriage is
ALWAYS a legal matter. There has NEVER been a need for churches to be
involved. A church's involvement is the right of the participants of
the marriage, and nothing more.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 05:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emerson Wainwright
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities.
I'd say that's a good reason for counseling against it, but
/prohibiting?/ The same argument would seem to provide justification
for the state mandating Tay-Sachs tests for two heterosexual Jews who
wish to marry, or sickle cell tests for two heterosexual blacks.
Post by LauraM
And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience.
I stipulated that any minor children getting married in my various
marriage scenaria would have the lawful consent of a parent or guardian
- in the specific case I asked about, it would be the parent whom the
minor child was to marry.
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
So far, I can't find any, either. I'm still on the fence about it, but
I'm heavily leaning toward saying I support it.
I wonder -- seriously -- why you would be sitting on that fence....
Because I keep hearing the anti-queer-marriage crowd saying that to
allow it will damage the legal protections for traditional families.
I'm a straight married man with a young child, so if allowing queers to
marry really would damage the legal environment for traditional straight
families, I want to know what that potential for damage might be, and
evaluate it to see if I find it a sufficiently serious potential threat.
If I found it to be so, then I might claw my way back to the other
side of the fence.

I have to say that I can't see that it would be, which is why I'm
leaning in the direction I am. I've asked a number of times in usenet
in what way, specifically, would allowing queers to marry harm the
interests of traditional families like mine, and to date, no opponent of
it has been able to offer anything concrete. That doesn't mean there
isn't a concrete objection, just that no one has offered any.
Post by Emerson Wainwright
I was too, for awhile. I'm gay. I had no idea that married couples
had so many rights and responsibilities accorded them, simply for
getting legally married.
And that's the issue. There are lots of them: presumed rights of
inheritance; presumed designation as beneficiary for employment related
benefits and other insurance policies; something as simple as an assumed
right to visit a spouse in hospital; tax filing status (that one may
actually work against married people - the so-called "marriage
penalty.") There are probably others, some important and others
relatively trivial, but there might be enough trivial ones that, take
together, they're pretty significant.

The weight of these, and the obvious unfairness in denying them to
people willing to make the legal commitment, are what have me leaning in
the direction I am.
Post by Emerson Wainwright
And then I thought, really, in response to people saying that same-sex
HOW? How is a woman marrying a woman somehow going to take away from
YOUR marriage? And with a 50% divorce rate, and the Brit Spears
fiasco... why should we consider that straight couples take marriage
any more seriously than gays?
The answer is always rooted in religion. Yet religion -- Judeo-
Christian religion -- took OVER marriage, which had previously been a
legal institution.
I actually doubt that. Marriage has always had a great religious
sanction dimension to it. If the Catholic church had allowed Henry VIII
to divorce, it might still be the established church of England. It was
only after the French revolution that marrying couples first began
having to go for a civil ceremony, then go for the big church wedding;
prior to that, the church wedding was all there was.
Post by Emerson Wainwright
In any event, CIVIL marriage has NEVER infringed upon what Judeo-
Christian religions believe to be their right (or rite). Marriage is
ALWAYS a legal matter. There has NEVER been a need for churches to be
involved. A church's involvement is the right of the participants of
the marriage, and nothing more.
I think the solution probably is for the state to abandon the words
"marriage" and "married" altogether, and to recognize only civil unions.
A marriage in a church by a minister or priest duly authorized to
perform them would be recognized by the state as a binding civil union;
alternatively, a couple could obtain such a union from a judge or
magistrate, or any other civil officer empowered to conduct them (ship's
captain, etc.) If a couple wished to have some non-state organization
such as a church give the institution's blessing to their union and call
it a "marriage", they'd have to a willing institution. For queers in
the U.S., this would probably be some Episcopal or Unitarian church, or
possibly a Presbyterian or Congregational (UCC) church in a 'blue'
state; maybe Church of the Brethren or Disciples of Christ, two
(relatively) socially liberal churches despite their forbidding names.
I think they could forget about any flavor of the Lutheran, Methodist
and Baptist churches. There's always the Metropolitan church.

When it comes to all the legal consequences of such a union, the words
"married" or "marriage" would be stricken and replaced in all state
documents with the appropriate term; on your federal 1040, instead of
checking "married and filing jointly", you'd check "civilly united and
filing jointly", or some such thing.
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied
on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that
certain sexual behavior is "immoral and unacceptable" constitutes a
rational basis for regulation.
Heterosexuals do the same thing in bed that homosexual do, or sex and
anal sex with the wife's consent.
Post by Rudy Canoza
prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that "[t]he
crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a
legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny
Ironically men think they are the answer to a woman's sex life and
nothing
could be further from the truth. Why do you think that vibrators were
created.
Men can go a long ways to producing children but fall short on
satisfying women
sexually.
Post by Rudy Canoza
regulations banning from military service those who engage in
homosexual conduct
Homosexuals are banned from military service in times of peace. In times
of war,
homosexuals are the first to the front.
Post by Rudy Canoza
a person has no
constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least
outside of marriage.
Well, that is certainly a reason for homsoexuals to get married, but
homosexuals
get way more sex out of life than heterosexuals who marry. Just ask any
heterosexual man
with or without a paycheck.
Post by Rudy Canoza
"a
substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,"
Don't talk to me about order and morality with a 45 percent divorce
rate, pastors/priests
finding sex within the flock, and the heterosexual porn business.


Queer sodomy not unlike straight sodomy is a bloody shitty business.
Post by Rudy Canoza
protect or support public morality is a legitimate function of
government. If people strongly believe that homosexual marriage is
immoral, it may be within the constitutional purview of the state to
prohibit it.
Most of society thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote.
Lots of society thought that women
shouldn't have the right to divorce or abortion.
Swynford
2008-06-04 15:02:20 UTC
Permalink
...the legal underpinnings of our society hold, at present, that
legislating to
protect or support public morality is a legitimate function of
government. If people strongly believe that homosexual marriage is
immoral, it may be within the constitutional purview of the state to
prohibit it.
Government my be able to prohibit same-sex marriage but it can't legislate
the morality of who or what demands it.

Will the right-wing ever learn that morality CANNOT be legislated??
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 16:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
...the legal underpinnings of our society hold, at present, that
legislating to
protect or support public morality is a legitimate function of
government. If people strongly believe that homosexual marriage is
immoral, it may be within the constitutional purview of the state to
prohibit it.
Government my be able to prohibit same-sex marriage but it can't legislate
the morality of who or what demands it.
Will the right-wing ever learn that morality CANNOT be legislated??
OF COURSE morality can be legislated, you stupid leftist fucknozzle.
The left does it all the time, and advocates more of it all the time.

I'm not advocating that morality /ought/ to be legislated, but there's
no denying that it is.
Swynford
2008-06-04 21:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
Will the right-wing ever learn that morality CANNOT be legislated??
OF COURSE morality can be legislated, you stupid .
The left does it all the time, and advocates more of it all the time.
Just try and legislate my morality you right-wing arsch ficker and see if
you are successful! The repukes have tried it many times. Eisenhower was
the first one I remember trying it! Before your time, I'm sure. Believe me,
Truman sure as hell never tried it; nor Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor Carter nor
Clinton.
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
No One
2008-06-04 21:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
OF COURSE morality can be legislated, you stupid .
The left does it all the time, and advocates more of it all the time.
Just try and legislate my morality you right-wing arsch ficker and see if
you are successful! The repukes have tried it many times. Eisenhower was
the first one I remember trying it! Before your time, I'm sure. Believe me,
Truman sure as hell never tried it; nor Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor Carter nor
Clinton.
Make that "especially Clinton". The first president caught getting a
blow job in the oval office would surely know better. At least it was
with a woman - if it had been with a guy, the Bible belt would have
gone so apoplectic that we'd have had mass deaths, and one hell of a
burial bill. :-)
n***@millions.com
2008-06-04 22:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Swynford
OF COURSE morality can be legislated, you stupid .
The left does it all the time, and advocates more of it all the time.
Just try and legislate my morality you right-wing arsch ficker and see if
you are successful! The repukes have tried it many times. Eisenhower was
the first one I remember trying it! Before your time, I'm sure. Believe me,
Truman sure as hell never tried it; nor Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor Carter nor
Clinton.
Make that "especially Clinton". The first president caught getting a
blow job in the oval office would surely know better. At least it was
with a woman - if it had been with a guy, the Bible belt would have
gone so apoplectic that we'd have had mass deaths, and one hell of a
burial bill. :-)
Sort of a moral;ity with different results?

DCI
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-05 05:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
Post by Swynford
Will the right-wing ever learn that morality CANNOT be legislated??
OF COURSE morality can be legislated, you stupid .
The left does it all the time, and advocates more of it all the time.
Just try and legislate my morality
You stupid cunt. No one is talking about legislating your benighted
views of what is moral. It's legislation to promote or prohibit
behavior that the majority views as moral or immoral, respectively, that
is meant by "legislating morality". And the left does it at least as
much as the right.
Swynford
2008-06-05 13:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You stupid cunt. No one is talking about legislating your benighted
views of what is moral. It's legislation to promote or prohibit
behavior that the majority views as moral or immoral, respectively, that
is meant by "legislating morality".
Legislate it yes. Stop it NO! Any idiot can see that! So what is the
purpose of legislation besides the appearance of doing something?????
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
The Master
2008-06-05 14:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
Legislate it yes. Stop it NO! Any idiot can see that! So what is the
purpose of legislation besides the appearance of doing something?????
Re-election donations... American politics is NOT based on FIXING things,
it's about pointing at a problem and bitching about it. The easily
manipulated population at large get all worked up over it, donate money,
and vote for the line they liked the most. However, if the problem is
ever fixed, the politicians won't have something to point and bitch about
next time... Politics is big business, paid for by special interest
groups.
Dave U. Random
2008-06-04 07:11:17 UTC
Permalink
On 03 Jun 2008, LauraM <***@yahoo.com> crapped some
news:30a9460a-62aa-442b-aeb7-
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional
amendment to
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
ban same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov.
4
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a
secular act
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should
play no
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
part
in
Post by The Master
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not
get
Post by LauraM
Post by The Master
marrie
d?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't
ever heard
Post by LauraM
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any
reason
Post by LauraM
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us:  should the state have the power
to
Post by LauraM
refuse to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage
(polygamy /
Post by LauraM
polyandry)? How about marriage between siblings, or between a
parent
Post by LauraM
and his own child?  Or how about this:  in states that allow
a child
Post by LauraM
below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced
custodial
Post by LauraM
parent or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor
child,
Post by LauraM
after that parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities. And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience. I find no valid
reason why gays can't marry.
They're filthy diseased perverts and we do not legitimize scum
by granting
it the same rights and privileges as normal human beings.
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by LauraM
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Allowing gays to marry *could* be the first step in recognizing other
relationships. However, there are valid scientific arguments in
prohibiting blood relatives marrying -- offspring are susceptible to
genetic deformities. And there are also valid arguments for children
under 18 not to marry as they are not adults and probably can't make
informed decisions due to their lack of experience. I find no valid
reason why gays can't marry.
Actually, one correction. No one under the age of 25 or without 2
degrees is the standard. Once one has 2 degrees or is over the age of
25, they have a good idea what married life is no matter who much they
are in denial.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
2008-06-07 18:12:14 UTC
Permalink
On 03 Jun 2008, LauraM <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:30a9460a-62aa-442b-aeb7-
Post by LauraM
I find no valid reason why gays can't marry.
I find no valid reason to accept your reasoning. Homosexuals
are mentally ill.

Homosexuals behave worse than blacks in public. It is a fact
set in stone that
they are extremely promiscuous, and have no respect for
themselves. They cannot
maintain relationships and they are very unsanitary. Health
statistics show that
at least 50% or more homosexuals have an active and untreated
STD. They have
unhealthy body refuse exchanges in spite of the risks. I'd
venture to say that
an animal has more respect and dignity than homosexuals.
Swynford
2008-06-08 14:30:37 UTC
Permalink
On 7-Jun-2008, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
They cannot maintain relationships...
I won't take on your babbling but this homo has maintained a 40 year
relationship!
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Wyle Coyote ©2008
2008-06-08 15:14:25 UTC
Permalink
On  7-Jun-2008, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
They cannot maintain relationships...
I won't take on your babbling but this homo has maintained a 40 year
relationship!
And since it's about "LOVE" why do you need the certificate?
It's just a piece of paper.
But now that I'm leaning towards a topic I've never heard discussed in
a gay marriage thread.
That being....
GOLD DIGGERS!
What about those?
Dionisio
2008-06-08 17:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
And since it's about "LOVE" why do you need the certificate?
Now this is something that's always fascinated me: Why do heterosexuals tend to put the
word love in quotation marks? It's a rather important ingredient to marriage, is it not?

And yet, when "love" comes into the picture -- with it's quotes and implied derision --
certain folks invoke it with what appears to be smugness, superiority, even hubris. It's
as though love-within-quotes is all they know.

So, I have to ask: Is "love" all you know of love?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

To provoke laughter without joining in it greatly heightens the effect.
-- Honore Balzac

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-08 17:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swynford
On 7-Jun-2008, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
They cannot maintain relationships...
I won't take on your babbling but this homo has maintained a 40 year
relationship!
Perhaps Mr. Anonymous hasn't heard about the fifty percent failure rate of
opposite-sex marriages. People in glass houses . . .
Lefty
2008-06-03 23:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But now suppose you tell us: should the state have the power to refuse
to allow or recognize multiple spouse marriage (polygamy / polyandry)?
How about marriage between siblings, or between a parent and his own
child? Or how about this: in states that allow a child below the age
of 18 to marry with parental consent, should a divorced custodial parent
or a widowed parent be allowed to marry his own minor child, after that
parent has given consent for the child to marry?
Can I answer that? What fun.

1) The state should have no such power, since there is no inherent
harm to either party.
2) As above.
3) The consent the parent would give is tainted by self interest. In
order to protect the child from being exploited, I'd have to say they
should be made to wait until age of majority is reached. This is a
reasonable precaution against harm.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Here's the issue: the state has *always* regulated marriage, and the
courts have always recognized and validated at least some of the
regulation. So, the question for you is, are you advocating the total
abolition of all state regulation of marriage? That is, should any
number of persons, irrespective of degree of kinship, be allowed to
marry if they have attained the age of majority, or if they are minors
and have permission from anyone authorized to give the permission? If
you answer "yes", then you're done, although I have to wonder about
Emerson's dictum concerning foolish consistency being applicable to you.
If you answer "no", then you've got a lot of difficult explaining to do.
If I may answer this one, as well; of course there should be
regulation, but it should be reasonable and justifiable.
There's no difficulty in explaining that. It is unreasonable and
unjustifiable to restrict marriage rights based on sexual orientation,
as there is no harm involved.
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Marriage gives legal rights to women with children if men try to dump
them. Other than that, there is no reason for any woman to marry and
certainly not any reason for a man to marry.

In some places in the world commonlaw relationshps leave the couple with
few legal rights.

Marriage is about divorce in the same way that sex is about pregnancy.

If you don't get married, you are not at risk for divorce. If you don't
have sex you are not at risk of pregnancy.

Why is it necessary for a woman or man to get married? Why do
heterosexual men and women want a marriage licence? One certainly
doesn't need a marriage licence to have sex. One certainly doesn't need
a marriage licence to have babies.
LauraM
2008-06-04 13:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question.  I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Marriage gives legal rights to women with children if men try to dump
them.  Other than that, there is no reason for any woman to marry and
certainly not any reason for a man to marry.
In some places in the world commonlaw relationshps leave the couple with
few legal rights.
Marriage is about divorce in the same way that sex is about pregnancy.
If you don't get married, you are not at risk for divorce.  If you don't
have sex you are not at risk of pregnancy.
Why is it necessary for a woman or man to get married?  Why do
heterosexual men and women want a marriage licence?   One certainly
doesn't need a marriage licence to have sex.  One certainly doesn't need
a marriage licence to have babies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Uhh...let me guess. You've been through a messy divorce?
anonymous
2008-06-05 02:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by LauraM
Post by anonymous
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Good question. I won't attempt to answer it, as I haven't ever heard
any compelling reason - in fact, I really haven't heard any reason
offered at all - that queers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Marriage gives legal rights to women with children if men try to dump
them. Other than that, there is no reason for any woman to marry and
certainly not any reason for a man to marry.
In some places in the world commonlaw relationshps leave the couple with
few legal rights.
Marriage is about divorce in the same way that sex is about pregnancy.
If you don't get married, you are not at risk for divorce. If you don't
have sex you are not at risk of pregnancy.
Why is it necessary for a woman or man to get married? Why do
heterosexual men and women want a marriage licence? One certainly
doesn't need a marriage licence to have sex. One certainly doesn't need
a marriage licence to have babies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Uhh...let me guess. You've been through a messy divorce?
No, not at all. In Canada for the most part there is not such thing as
a messy divorce only stupidity. Assets of the marriage are split
equally. Any child under the age of 7 is likely be in the care of the
wife until the child at the age of 7, usually can express with parent he
wants to live with. In as much as most Canadian men marry women whom
earn less than the husband, it necessitates that the men give money to
the wife after divorce directly or indirectly to be able to assist her
financially in looking after the kids of the marriage. If the wife is
enployed in a job that has no pension, it would be likely the husband
would have to split his pension with the wife so she could benefit,
too. The stupidity part is when the husband thinks he can keep all the
money and the house because he has started a new family with a new
woman.
None
2008-06-03 23:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.

Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.

The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.

It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-03 23:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you also
failed eighth grade Civics.

Same-sex marriage is here; get used to it.
Seymour Lurkers
2008-06-03 23:51:38 UTC
Permalink
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you
also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to say, and
you're wrong.

A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless it's a
dictatorship.
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Same-sex marriage is here; get used to it.
Not if the majority passes a constitutional amendment specifically banning
it, and I think they will.
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-03 23:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seymour Lurkers
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you
also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to say,
and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless it's a
dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Same-sex marriage is here; get used to it.
Not if the majority passes a constitutional amendment specifically banning
it, and I think they will.
If by some chance the California amendment passes in November, it is open to
challenge at the federal level.
Seymour Lurkers
2008-06-04 00:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you
also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to say,
and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless it's a
dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary. At any rate,
you're
just hoping an activist judge will bail you out again.
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Same-sex marriage is here; get used to it.
Not if the majority passes a constitutional amendment specifically
banning it, and I think they will.
If by some chance the California amendment passes in November, it is open
to challenge at the federal level.
In which case the hand of the majority will be forced to seek a US
Constitutional
ban and you'll both have one marble to put into the ring. Again, I think
you'll lose - permanently at that level.
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-04 00:36:31 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless it's a
dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary.
Well, no it doesn't. The current law in California is a result of the
judiciary's overturning of a voter initiative. You might recall that public
opinion was against inter-racial marriage when the USSC overturned
anti-miscegenation bans in 1967.

[snip]
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
If by some chance the California amendment passes in November, it is open
to challenge at the federal level.
In which case the hand of the majority will be forced to seek a US
Constitutional
ban and you'll both have one marble to put into the ring. Again, I think
you'll lose - permanently at that level.
There's no initiative/referendum process at the federal level. Besides,
even in recent Republican-controlled Congresses, numerous proposals to
introduce federal Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have
failed to even get out of committee. There's no reason to believe a
subsequent attempt would be any more successful.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 04:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you
also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to say,
and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless it's a
dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary.
He was a bit off. It's not the judiciary; it's the Constitution. The
Constitution puts clear limits on what the majority may do. First of
all, there is no provision for majority vote for *anything* at the U.S.
federal level - there is no national office that is determined by a
simple majority of voters, and there is no provision for a national
referendum or initiative. There just is no way for a simple majority of
voters in the U.S. to make their wishes effective.

Second of all, the Constitution clearly elaborates the means of
amendment, and it is not amenable in any way to the wishes of the
majority. A majority of voters cannot decide to amend the Constitution.

The only way a simple majority could amend the Constitution and, say,
restore slavery or do away with one of the amendments, is for a mob to
overthrow the government and institute a new constitution.

Looks like you're fucked.
Post by Seymour Lurkers
At any rate,
At any rate, you're fucked.
ACC Rules
2008-06-04 05:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
On 03 Jun 2008, The Master
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to
ban same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4
ballot Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will
have repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular
act recognized by religion. As such, religious views should
play no part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order
and discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If
the society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a
tiny group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the
majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is
the basis for all social constructs where people live in an
organized governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for
any number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the
behavior by majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept
of homosexual marriage is actually quite humerous since most of
them have no capacity or desire to form long term relationships
anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because
this is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a
chosen and personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I
see you also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to
say, and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless
it's a dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary.
He was a bit off. It's not the judiciary; it's the Constitution. The
Constitution puts clear limits on what the majority may do. First of
all, there is no provision for majority vote for *anything* at the
U.S. federal level - there is no national office that is determined by
a simple majority of voters, and there is no provision for a national
referendum or initiative. There just is no way for a simple majority
of voters in the U.S. to make their wishes effective.
Second of all, the Constitution clearly elaborates the means of
amendment, and it is not amenable in any way to the wishes of the
majority. A majority of voters cannot decide to amend the
Constitution.
The only way a simple majority could amend the Constitution and, say,
restore slavery or do away with one of the amendments, is for a mob to
overthrow the government and institute a new constitution.
Looks like you're fucked.
Post by Seymour Lurkers
At any rate,
At any rate, you're fucked.
The United States Constitution

Article. V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

It clearly states that a majority may amend the constitution, you dumb
California hick fuck.
mariposas rand mair fheal
2008-06-04 05:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ACC Rules
The United States Constitution
umm its a proposed amendment to the state constitution
made under the rules of the state constitution

the us constitution is only relevant if it were to violate that

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
No One
2008-06-04 05:41:19 UTC
Permalink
[irrelevant newsgroups snipped]
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by ACC Rules
The United States Constitution
umm its a proposed amendment to the state constitution
made under the rules of the state constitution
.... which allow the California State Constitution to be modified
by a simple majority vote of the voters, a quirk of the initiative
process.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 06:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by ACC Rules
The United States Constitution
umm its a proposed amendment to the state constitution
made under the rules of the state constitution
True, but state constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution
where matters addressed by the latter are concerned, e.g. equal
protection, and if a federal court decides that a state constitutional
amendment is in violation of the US Constitution, then That Will Be
That, and the amendment to California's constitution will be dust.
mariposas rand mair fheal
2008-06-04 07:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by ACC Rules
The United States Constitution
umm its a proposed amendment to the state constitution
made under the rules of the state constitution
True, but state constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution
where matters addressed by the latter are concerned, e.g. equal
protection, and if a federal court decides that a state constitutional
amendment is in violation of the US Constitution, then That Will Be
That, and the amendment to California's constitution will be dust.
theres not yet a federal court interpretation
that equal protection includes sexuality

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 14:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by ACC Rules
The United States Constitution
umm its a proposed amendment to the state constitution
made under the rules of the state constitution
True, but state constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution
where matters addressed by the latter are concerned, e.g. equal
protection, and if a federal court decides that a state constitutional
amendment is in violation of the US Constitution, then That Will Be
That, and the amendment to California's constitution will be dust.
theres not yet a federal court interpretation
that equal protection includes sexuality
They certainly have come close enough, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S.
438, which held that Massachusetts could not prohibit the sale of
contraceptives to unmarried persons. That holding was based on the
Equal Protection clause.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 06:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ACC Rules
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Seymour Lurkers
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Seymour Lurkers
X-No-Archive: yes
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
On 03 Jun 2008, The Master
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to
ban same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4
ballot Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will
have repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular
act recognized by religion. As such, religious views should
play no part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order
and discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If
the society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a
tiny group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the
majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is
the basis for all social constructs where people live in an
organized governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for
any number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the
behavior by majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept
of homosexual marriage is actually quite humerous since most of
them have no capacity or desire to form long term relationships
anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because
this is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a
chosen and personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I
see you also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to
say, and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless
it's a dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary.
He was a bit off. It's not the judiciary; it's the Constitution. The
Constitution puts clear limits on what the majority may do. First of
all, there is no provision for majority vote for *anything* at the
U.S. federal level - there is no national office that is determined by
a simple majority of voters, and there is no provision for a national
referendum or initiative. There just is no way for a simple majority
of voters in the U.S. to make their wishes effective.
Second of all, the Constitution clearly elaborates the means of
amendment, and it is not amenable in any way to the wishes of the
majority. A majority of voters cannot decide to amend the
Constitution.
The only way a simple majority could amend the Constitution and, say,
restore slavery or do away with one of the amendments, is for a mob to
overthrow the government and institute a new constitution.
Looks like you're fucked.
Post by Seymour Lurkers
At any rate,
At any rate, you're fucked.
The United States Constitution
Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
It clearly states that a majority may amend the constitution, you dumb
California hick fuck.
No, it doesn't, you colossal hick gasbag fuck prickcheese.

First of all, douchenozzle, there is *NO* provision by which a majority
of the populace may amend the Constitution. The Constitution may *only*
be amended through act of Congress (by super-majority) ratified by the
states (a super-majority of states), or by a constitutional convention
requested by a super-majority of states, with the resulting amendments
ratified by another super-majority of states.

What the FUCK about "two thirds" and "three fourths" do you not
understand, you fuckwitted hillbilly cunthair? Those are not mere
majorities, shit-4-braincell - they're *super*-majorities. They're also
applicable only to houses of Congress or states, you stupid shitbag.

Don't respond to me again, cocksucker. You're too stupid for this, and
stupid people have no right of response. Just shut the fuck up,
shitbag, and *stay* shut up.
Teh Czar ov Awl Teh Flonkers
2008-06-04 11:50:43 UTC
Permalink
I'll never know another Rudy Canoza like Rudy Canoza on Tue, 03 Jun 2008
23:59:26 -0700 in alt.gossip.celebrities, soc.support.fat-acceptance,
alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california, alt.usenet.kooks, they're so
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by ACC Rules
Post by Rudy Canoza
"Dennis Kemmerer" wrote...
"Seymour Lurkers" wrote...
"Dennis Kemmerer" wrote...
"None" wrote...
On 03 Jun 2008, The Master
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to
ban same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4
ballot Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will
have repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular
act recognized by religion. As such, religious views should
play no part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order
and discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If
the society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a
tiny group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the
majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is
the basis for all social constructs where people live in an
organized governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for
any number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the
behavior by majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept
of homosexual marriage is actually quite humerous since most of
them have no capacity or desire to form long term relationships
anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because
this is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a
chosen and personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I
see you also failed eighth grade Civics.
Civics has nothing to do with what I think the poster is trying to
say, and you're wrong.
A majority always makes the rules in any civilized society unless
it's a dictatorship.
You forgot about the role of the judiciary.
Not at all. A clear majority will always trump any judiciary.
He was a bit off. It's not the judiciary; it's the Constitution. The
Constitution puts clear limits on what the majority may do. First of
all, there is no provision for majority vote for *anything* at the
U.S. federal level - there is no national office that is determined by
a simple majority of voters, and there is no provision for a national
referendum or initiative. There just is no way for a simple majority
of voters in the U.S. to make their wishes effective.
Second of all, the Constitution clearly elaborates the means of
amendment, and it is not amenable in any way to the wishes of the
majority. A majority of voters cannot decide to amend the
Constitution.
The only way a simple majority could amend the Constitution and, say,
restore slavery or do away with one of the amendments, is for a mob to
overthrow the government and institute a new constitution.
Looks like you're fucked.
At any rate,
At any rate, you're fucked.
The United States Constitution
Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
It clearly states that a majority may amend the constitution, you dumb
California hick fuck.
No, it doesn't, you colossal hick gasbag fuck prickcheese.
First of all, douchenozzle, there is *NO* provision by which a majority
of the populace may amend the Constitution. The Constitution may *only*
be amended through act of Congress (by super-majority) ratified by the
states (a super-majority of states), or by a constitutional convention
requested by a super-majority of states, with the resulting amendments
ratified by another super-majority of states.
What the FUCK about "two thirds" and "three fourths" do you not
understand, you fuckwitted hillbilly cunthair? Those are not mere
majorities, shit-4-braincell - they're *super*-majorities. They're also
applicable only to houses of Congress or states, you stupid shitbag.
Don't respond to me again, cocksucker. You're too stupid for this, and
stupid people have no right of response. Just shut the fuck up,
shitbag, and *stay* shut up.
I believe ACC Rules deserves the attention of alt.fucknozzles, as he
seems to be very much on-topic there.<waves to APH>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! Kallisti!!!
Lola Stonewall Riot, Usenet Ruiner #5; Official Chung Demon
Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone renounced violence forever? I
could then conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter knife."

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

AUK FAQ: http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html

WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2007
Message-ID: <***@204.153.245.131>

WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2007
Message-ID: <***@204.153.245.131>

WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, January 2007 MID:
<***@204.153.244.170>

2001 RADW Bitch of the Year, ADRIC Awards (by acclamation); mhm 29x21;
Tom Baker's #1 Fan; Flonk Leader #2 & #11 1/9; S.N.A.R.K.Y.: Synthetic
Networked Android Responsible for Killing and Yardwork; the Discordian
People's Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio); Demon of
Mockery and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of
Absurdity; Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition; Lola, called
Snarky, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia; Queen of Rice; TransWench; Ship's
Chaos Demon, Bad Ship BetNoirian; The God of Odd Statements; Dr. L. C.
Snark, Professor of Philosophy, Critical Theory (Liberal Arts and
Contemporary Studies), Mockery, Silliness, Confusion, Absurdity, Chaos,
& General Mayhem, Centre For Xena Studies; The God-Fairy-Demon Snark;
The Black Goat With A Thousand Young; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK, GGGHD, MWFA, HCNB, CPFG, CEM;
Superfaggot; Canadian Popular Front for the Whitetail Jihad; Wearer of
the Holy FAGGOT Hat; Sec'y, Int'l Homosexual Conspiracy; Treasurer,
Int'l Anarchist Conspiracy; Czar of all the Flonkers; Mastermind of the
SMOF; allegedly The Worst Kind Of Feminist; Chas. E. Pemberton; Pete
Stapleton; Joseph Bartlo; Koi-Lo; Henry Schmidt, the PorscheMonkey4Life;
TEH USENETS BULLIE
ICQ: 135930147; popesnarkyatcaballistadotorg
BITCH PRIDE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotable quotes:

"So the American government lied to the Native Americans for many, many
years, and then President Clinton lied about a relationship, and
everyone was surprised! A little naive, I feel!"
-- Eddie Izzard

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

"i have no need for sex; i'd rather tease you, honeybuns." -- Teh Mop
Jockey doesn't know the meaning of "TMI". MID:
<***@unixd0rk.com>

"Gabrielle?! Monkey-man, you bring her back! You know, you two are
beginning to irritate me with these obsessions of yours!
Fish don't just catch themselves!" -- Xena, "Fins, Femmes, &
Gems" (64/318)
Post by Rudy Canoza
Free cl00: Why do you think you've been nominated for so many awards,
Dribbles???
"Because y'all have so many nyms. Like I stated yesterday. Your b1tch as$
opinion doesn't mean $hit to me. You are totally irrelevant to me. I
continue flame you because I like kicking retards around." -- The
Monkey-man is unaware that Max Grrl only _has_ one nym. MID:
<jq9xh.875$***@trnddc02>

"Open wide and wait for a $hit explosion, turdboy" -- Joxer isn't very
well-acquainted with the concept of not aiming the flamethrower at his
Post by Rudy Canoza
By the by, the "BT" that was mentioned in my exchange with her? That is
a retired bishop that she thinks is lurking in usenet groups giving her
secret messages about what and where to post.
"I did not say he was giving me anonymous messages about where to post,
I said he *may* have given me anonymous messages about where to post."
-- No, Beauty's not a paranoid k00k at all. No way. Doesn't
everyone(tine) think that way, sometimes? Message-ID:
<ergl7i$njc$***@registered.motzarella.org>
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment. Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you also
failed eighth grade Civics.
Same-sex marriage is here; get used to it.
Absolutely. Same sex marriage is happening globally.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 00:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part
in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
so what
2008-06-05 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
n***@millions.com
2008-06-05 03:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by so what
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
You sure don't understand the US Constitution works and the checks and
balance therein or how they work in the three branches of federal
government.

DCI
Silverlight
2008-06-05 03:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@millions.com
Post by so what
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
You sure don't understand the US Constitution works and the checks and
balance therein or how they work in the three branches of federal
government.
DCI
Apparently you've never thought much about it either.

It takes a specific majority agreement at every stage, and at every check
and balance.

What a stupid thing to argue over.
n***@millions.com
2008-06-05 04:09:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:40:19 -0700, "Silverlight"
Post by Silverlight
Post by n***@millions.com
Post by so what
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
You sure don't understand the US Constitution works and the checks and
balance therein or how they work in the three branches of federal
government.
DCI
Apparently you've never thought much about it either.
It takes a specific majority agreement at every stage, and at every check
and balance.
What a stupid thing to argue over.
Tell it to the US Supreme Court.

Your above response shows you are hedging your original piece on the
"majority."

No one is arguing from here. Just discussing and clarifying.

DCI
Wyle Coyote ©2008
2008-06-05 14:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@millions.com
Post by so what
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
You sure don't understand the US Constitution works and the checks and
balance therein or how they work in the three branches of federal
government.
Clearly, nobody else in the USA or political office understands it
either!
The Master
2008-06-05 14:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by n***@millions.com
You sure don't understand the US Constitution works and the checks and
balance therein or how they work in the three branches of federal
government.
Clearly, nobody else in the USA or political office understands it
either!
The system of checks and balances only work when all three brances of
government aren't corupt, and working for either the short sighted goal of
the member's political party of choice, or the goals of the special
interest group with the deepest pockets.
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-05 05:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by so what
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot
Monday, kick-starting an election struggle that will have
repercussions across the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no
part in the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
No; you're just a simpleton.
Easy for you to recognize as a fellow simp then wasn't it? You talk a lot
of shit, but it's usually all bs and no real substance.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by None
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
No - at least, not in a constitutional republic. Sometimes, the
majority do not get their way.
Yep, you're a simp, because the constitution in a "constitutional
republic" can, and has been, changed by the majority to "get their way."
No, you stupid simpleton cunt, it hasn't - not in the U.S., anyway. As
I have patiently explained to half a dozen other simple fucknozzles like
you the U.S. Constitution contains no provision for amendment by a
majority of American citizens. *EVERY* statement in the Constitution
regarding its amendment indicates that at every step of the way, a
super-majority is required. The numbers "two thirds" and "three
fourths" - much more than a simple 51% majority - appear repeatedly. In
order for an amendment proposed in Congress to be approved by Congress,
2/3 of *both* houses must vote for it. If constitutional amendments are
to originate in a constitutional convention, 2/3 of the states must vote
to call such a convention. Any proposed amendment coming out of
Congress or a constitutional convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the
states. *ALL* of that, you stupid fuck, implies that much *more* than a
mere majority of Americans must support the change.

You're a stupid simple cunt.
Dionisio
2008-06-04 00:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
Unless that organized governed group is a Democratic Republic...

Oops.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?
-- George Carlan

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
so what
2008-06-05 02:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by None
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny
group of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they
are free to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule.
That is the basis for all social constructs where people live in an
organized governed group.
Unless that organized governed group is a Democratic Republic...
Oops.
What exactly do you think a majority rule is, dumbfuck?
Dionisio
2008-06-05 04:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by so what
What exactly do you think a majority rule is, dumbfuck?
The ultimate in hubris.

Rights are rights because they are sacrosanct; And for good reason.

That is why the USA is a Democratic Republic. While the politicians of today are nothing
more than greenhouse gas sources, those of old were smart enough to get things right.

Any other questions?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?
-- the last words of Socrates

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Swynford
2008-06-05 13:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Rights are rights because they are sacrosanct; And for good reason.
That is why the USA is a Democratic Republic. While the politicians of today are nothing
more than greenhouse gas sources, those of old were smart enough to get things right.
Any other questions?
:)
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
anonymous
2008-06-04 08:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
Post by The Master
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live. If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority, they are free
to prohibit it, or limit aspects of it by majority rule. That is the
basis for all social constructs where people live in an organized
governed group.
Oh, it is true that the majority rule. You only have to look to the
last world war about
the majority ruling or almost ruling the world.
Post by None
The vast majority of people find homosexuals objectionable for any
number of reasons, and therefore they can ban or limit the behavior by
majority rule if they so choose. The entire concept of homosexual
marriage is actually quite humerous since most of them have no capacity
or desire to form long term relationships anyway.
Unless you are a homosexual, on what basis can you make that statement?
And with a divorce rate
of 45 percent in heterosexual society and an unknown percentage of
heterosexuals who don't get divorced but live unhappily and a further
percentage of married heteroseuals who remain silent about marriage,
don't talk to me about homosexuals rights or desires to marry or have
long term relationships. Just ask any wife on the planet about how
monogamous her husband has been throughout the marriage.
Post by None
It all boils down to homosexuals attempting to legally force the
majority to accept them, and socking the healthcare systems for advanced
STD or AIDS treatment.
On what basis are you able to speak for homosexuals. No on rushes to an
altar faster than a church going
person so they have legally have sex.

In a worst case scenario, the amount of money spent on std or AIDS
treatment is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on
divorce, getting support for women and children, dealing with problem
children in society all related to marriage and divorce and people
having children they cannot afford or are ill equipped to look after or
raise.
Post by None
Long term, it's going to backfire, because this
is not the same thing as a racial division, this is purely a chosen and
personal behavioral issue.
Look to Canada and you will see no problem with homosexual marriage. It
is heterosexual marriage that fills the courts with women and children
asking for money from the husband/father.
The Master
2008-06-04 12:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
Post by The Master
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
It's very simple.
Societal majority rules, and decides, what constitutes good order and
discipline within the society in which they wish to live.
And that means that rights are government granted and subject to popular
opinion, making them not rights, but permissions. Sorry, but rights exist
by virtue of the blood in your veins, not because 51% of the population
agrees with it.
Post by None
If the
society as a whole or majority part, finds the conduct of a tiny group
of people is objectionable or detrimental to the majority,
The tiny group still has the right to conduct itself within it's rights.
Morality shouldn't be legislated.

If 51% of the population wanted to ban guns, is it ok?
If 51% of the population wanted to abolish freedom of the press, is it ok?
If 51% of the population wanted to outlaw christianity, is it ok?

I would really like to know, where would YOU draw the line? What "rights"
are subject to majority rule and what "rights" aren't... Are they ALL
subject to majority rule?
Swynford
2008-06-04 15:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Your unsubstantiated assertions and grammatical errors aside, I see you
also
failed eighth grade Civics.
He should work for the Federal Gov't. One has to write memos there for an
education no higher than 7th grade!!!
Does this tell you part of what's wrong with this country? Is it possible
that the federal workers just may be more stupid than their president?
--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Wyle Coyote ©2008
2008-06-04 12:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
Why the insistence on calling thier union "Marriage", when it's
clearly a UNION being granted
to maintain some type of CIVIIL order?
The Master
2008-06-04 13:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
Because last time I knew (I don't keep up with it, so I don't know if it's
still the case), not a single state offering "domestic partnerships"
recognize the same set of rights and considerations to gay couples as they
do married couples. Last time I knew, not even California.

Also, marriages are valid "across state lines", while domestic
partnerships are void in states that don't offer them. That's the real
issue, isn't it? The moment California grants marrage to gay couples, all
other states are required to recognize that marrage. If a gay married
couple moves to Oklahoma, they are still married, even though Oklahoma
doesn't offer gay marrage.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Why the insistence on calling thier union "Marriage", when it's
clearly a UNION being granted
to maintain some type of CIVIIL order?
Honestly, I don't give a shit what word is used... Keep it "domestic
partner" for all I care... But you have to grant the same considerations,
recognize the same rights, and provide the same benefits, as married
couples. Last time I knew, that wasn't the case...
Dionisio
2008-06-05 00:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
We tried separate but equal before. Didn't work out so well. Why repeat mistakes?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

It is Autumn.
Sitting in a duck blind. Shotgun raised.
Sighting down the barrel.
A duck floats closer and closer. Boom!
I blow its plastic head off.
If you'd been squatting here in the cold dampness since 6 this morning, you'd be bored
enough to shoot your decoys too.
-- From the "Red Green Show"

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Wyle Coyote ©2008
2008-06-05 14:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
We tried separate but equal before. Didn't work out so well. Why repeat mistakes?
Because the term "marriage" is steeped in religious connotations.
If people in civil unions have the same rights as married people, why
would
there be a problem? Unions between two of the same sex is considered
WRONG!
That being said, why would gays want to call thier union "marriage",
given my first statement?
Dionisio
2008-06-06 00:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
We tried separate but equal before. Didn't work out so well. Why repeat mistakes?
Because the term "marriage" is steeped in religious connotations.
So?

It's not like they own the word, have copyrighted it, protected it via trademark...

And it's not like they respect it.

Hell, the only time they get huffy and take aim to "protect" it is when there's an
opportunity to use it to enhance the take of the collection plate.

Whoopee.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
If people in civil unions have the same rights as married people, why
would there be a problem?
They don't.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Unions between two of the same sex is considered WRONG!
Considered is a bit different from *being* wrong.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
That being said, why would gays want to call thier union "marriage",
given my first statement?
Why not call it what it is? Two people, joining together; In sickness and in health; For
better and for worse; Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I suspect the real reason you object is because we've been shown to value it more than the
"holy." How embarrassing! Sinners respecting something more than the believers! "Oh the
horror! Protect us from the horror!" (As an aside, there is someone who tries to do just
that. He is called many names, but perhaps you've heard of him: Satan.)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

People need insults. Most people behave so abominably that they cry out for abuse. Charity
moves us to meet this need. Abuse is a form of attention, and a little accommodating
attention makes anyone feel human again. Now f*** off, oh clueless blatherskite!

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Wyle Coyote ©2008
2008-06-08 15:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
We tried separate but equal before. Didn't work out so well. Why repeat mistakes?
Because the term "marriage" is steeped in religious connotations.
So?
It's not like they own the word, have copyrighted it, protected it via trademark...
And it's not like they respect it.
Granted, but why the insistence on adopting it?
Do you want what has been disrepected, trashed, soiled, disgraced,
stained, abused, etc. to represent
what you and your "lover" share between each other?
Why not call it Civil Unions?
Post by Dionisio
Hell, the only time they get huffy and take aim to "protect" it is when there's an
opportunity to use it to enhance the take of the collection plate.
Whoopee.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
If people in civil unions have the same rights as married people, why
would there be a problem?
They don't.
And part of the slowed pace in obtaining those rights, is
due to the "desired" terminoligy.
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Unions between two of the same sex is considered WRONG!
Considered is a bit different from *being* wrong.
You missed my point. As I said earlier, the word marriage is heavily
steeped in
religion, where "marriage" is defined as a union between on man and
one woman.
Wanting to use the term to represent a gay couples union is equivalent
to black men
identifying each other as "Nigger". Word for the day: Derivative.
Post by Dionisio
I suspect the real reason you object is because we've been shown to value it more than the
"holy." How embarrassing! Sinners respecting something more than the believers! "Oh the
horror! Protect us from the horror!" (As an aside, there is someone who tries to do just
that. He is called many names, but perhaps you've heard of him: Satan.)
You're losing it here.
Quite haughty for a member of a group whose had the opportunity to
marry legally on Earth for 6 years, compared to a group with zillions
of SUPERIOR examples and thousands of years to back them.
Who made who???
P Heberer
2008-06-08 17:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
We tried separate but equal before. Didn't work out so well. Why
repeat
mistakes?
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Because the term "marriage" is steeped in religious connotations.
So?
It's not like they own the word, have copyrighted it, protected it
via tra
demark...
Post by Dionisio
And it's not like they respect it.
Granted, but why the insistence on adopting it?
Do you want what has been disrepected, trashed, soiled, disgraced,
stained, abused, etc. to represent
what you and your "lover" share between each other?
Why not call it Civil Unions?
Call it anything you want, it no longer matters. The peeder puffers
have ignored the far reaching aspect of their agenda. The word
"marriage", where it applies to fags, will be a worthless symbol
drenched in rotting fecal matter until the end of time. It will mean
nothing to anyone but them, and it's not something to be proud of.
Dionisio
2008-06-08 17:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by P Heberer
Call it anything you want, it no longer matters. The peeder puffers
have ignored the far reaching aspect of their agenda. The word
"marriage", where it applies to fags, will be a worthless symbol
drenched in rotting fecal matter until the end of time. It will mean
nothing to anyone but them, and it's not something to be proud of.
I'll hazard a guess and say: Married. One seldom sees such levels of angst from bachelors
after all. It seems that once a man "knows" a woman, all Hell breaks loose. Is it a
coincidence that the most quoted Apostle was also celibate?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"Made in His image, yeah right! If that's the truth, I think I'll put off meeting God for
a good long time. All of his little images running around down here are really bad PR."
-- ***@hal.fmhi.usf.edu (Mark Buzza) (10-27-94)

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Dionisio
2008-06-08 17:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
It's not like they own the word, have copyrighted it, protected it via trademark...
And it's not like they respect it.
Granted, but why the insistence on adopting it?
Things should be called what they are.

Ironically, there's a big push from those who have serious -- and also somewhat legitimate
-- concerns about "PC" speech. But what is the whole "what do ya call it" thing? PC
speech. There are those who don't feel comfy with applying the word marriage to certain
groups, so they invent "safer," "more acceptable," and politically correct terms. They do
not change the fundamental nature of what the thing is, and what the thing is is marriage.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Do you want what has been disrepected, trashed, soiled, disgraced,
stained, abused, etc. to represent
what you and your "lover" share between each other?
Why not call it Civil Unions?
Oh. You feel that the fight to bring back respectability to marriage is a lost cause?

Well, you may be right. It might be a lost cause. That said, if the assumption is true,
then what harm can there be? If the assumption is false...?
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
And part of the slowed pace in obtaining those rights, is
due to the "desired" terminoligy.
Again, "So?"

It is rather amusing -- in a rather dreadful way -- that that is the cause of the slow
pace. It also has a somewhat sadistically ironic side effect: Those who will eventually
have the right, the full right, called by the truthful term, will value it above all
things *due* to the bickering, the contentiousness, the fight.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Unions between two of the same sex is considered WRONG!
Considered is a bit different from *being* wrong.
You missed my point. As I said earlier, the word marriage is heavily
steeped in religion, where "marriage" is defined as a union between on man and
one woman.
This may have been so obvious that it escaped you, but we don't base our laws on religion.
This isn't Vatican City, Iran, or some other amoral nation.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Wanting to use the term to represent a gay couples union is equivalent
to black men identifying each other as "Nigger". Word for the day: Derivative.
<LOL!> Now *this* is amusing! In the land where "hot" meant the same as "cool" -- later
joined by "phat" and "sick" -- you're quibbling over the transitory. Now I'll grant that
the first time I heard one black man greeting another black man with "What up, my nigger?"
it was a WTF moment. Nonetheless, we must also acknowledge that what people choose to call
themselves "until death us do part" is something that is -- or at least should be --
something other than transitory.

Granted, I'm an idealist. I don't see that as being so bad though.
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by Dionisio
I suspect the real reason you object is because we've been shown to value it more than the
"holy." How embarrassing! Sinners respecting something more than the believers! "Oh the
horror! Protect us from the horror!" (As an aside, there is someone who tries to do just
that. He is called many names, but perhaps you've heard of him: Satan.)
You're losing it here.
Quite haughty for a member of a group whose had the opportunity to
marry legally on Earth for 6 years, compared to a group with zillions
of SUPERIOR examples and thousands of years to back them.
Oh? Funny how the fact that there are several nations where same-sex marriage has been
around for far longer than the proverbial "7-year itch" escapes you. Or perhaps,
"convenient." (Yes, I'll level that charge.)

And if one looks at the fidelity stats in those places, one sees something rather
interesting among the same-sexers: Fidelity. Now yes, there is divorce. And yes, there are
marriages where the parties probably should get divorced, admit the mistake and move on.
But are the stats for same-sex marriages that end in divorce even half as large as those
of opposite-sex marriage?

Go ahead. Look.

Now about your romance with large numbers... If we only did what the majority did, there
would be no United States of America. "Democracy? What a joke! Giving commoners a say in
their governance is the path to ruin!" And yet here we are... And the naysayers are quite
thoroughly dead.

And now for the stab to the heart of your argument: If we only did what the majority did,
then it wouldn't be one man and one woman. That wasn't the historic arrangement after all.
It was one man and as many wives and concubines as he could support. And then some
insignificant group started adopting a different standard...

What hubris they had!
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"It is one thing to believe, as I do, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It
is quite another to believe that committed same-sex relationships ... should not be
recognized by society.

"We cannot prohibit or ban these relationships, and we shouldn't use our law to attempt to
do so."
-- Denver, Colorado, Governor Roy Romer, 3/25/96

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
No One
2008-06-05 01:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
Because the California Supreme Court said that is not good enough. One
example given in the court decision is the following (you can find the
full decision at
<http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF>):

In addition, plaintiffs' briefs disclose a further way in
which the different designations established by the current
statutes impinge upon the constitutionally protected privacy
interest of same-sex couples. Plaintiffs point out that one
consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of
familial relationship is that --- in the numerous everyday
social, employment, and governmental settings in which an
individual is asked whether he or she "is married or single"
--- an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately
responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a
realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual
orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under
the circumstances and even if that information is totally
irrelevant in the setting in question. Because the
constitutional right of privacy ordinarily would protect an
individual from having to disclose his or her sexual
orientation under circumstances in which that information is
irrelevant (see, e.g., People v. Garcia, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th
1269, 1280; Urbaniak v. Newton (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1128,
1140-1141), the existence of two separate family designations
--- one available only to opposite-sex couples and the other
to same-sex couples --- impinges upon this privacy interest,
and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by
those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been
rejected by California society at large.
anonymous
2008-06-05 02:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyle Coyote ©2008
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
So why don't they settle for CIVIL UNIONS w/all the rights married
people are entitled to?
Why the insistence on calling thier union "Marriage", when it's
clearly a UNION being granted
to maintain some type of CIVIIL order?
Well, in America, I don't know. Under Canadian law, a marriage is
everything and a civil union is much, much less as far as legal rights
under the law.
donjuanofaustria
2008-06-07 19:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
******The CA Supreme Court overstepped the legislature and prior
voter's ballot initiative...gays Do Not have a right to marry under
the U.S. Constitution...the legislative intent of Calif's anti-
discrimination law was to prevent job and housing discrimination, not
permit marriage...Regardless of your opinion, it was wrong for the
court to negate the law...the U.S. Constitution had to be amended to
make blacks citizens ,to give women and 18 yr olds the right to vote
(fed).; A court is not entitled to award rights which NEVER previously
existed anywhere in the history of the U.S. or in English common law...
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-07 20:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
******The CA Supreme Court overstepped the legislature and prior
voter's ballot initiative...gays Do Not have a right to marry under
the U.S. Constitution...the legislative intent of Calif's anti-
discrimination law was to prevent job and housing discrimination, not
permit marriage...Regardless of your opinion, it was wrong for the
court to negate the law...the U.S. Constitution had to be amended to
make blacks citizens ,to give women and 18 yr olds the right to vote
(fed).; A court is not entitled to award rights which NEVER previously
existed anywhere in the history of the U.S. or in English common law...

----------

Take an eighth grade Civics course. There's so much ignorance in the above
it's hard to know where to start.

First, determining constitutionality of California state law is the primary
function of the California Supreme Court; it doesn't matter whether the law
was established by the California state legislature or through the state's
initiative process.

Second, no one has the right to marry under the United States Constitution;
marriage laws are under state jurisdiction. However, marriage as a
fundamental right has invariably been upheld in every USSC challenge.

Third, housing and job anti-discrimination laws are independent of civil
marriage statutes.

Fourth, suffrage is under federal jurisdiction.

Fifth, courts are required to uphold an unenumerated right unless compelling
interest can be shown to deny it.
Emerson Wainwright
2008-06-07 21:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by donjuanofaustria
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
******The CA Supreme Court overstepped the legislature and prior
voter's ballot initiative...
All Supreme Courts do that. They have authority to protect their
constitutions, and constitutional law always trumps legislation in
American courts.
Post by donjuanofaustria
gays Do Not have a right to marry under
the U.S. Constitution...
Gays are not denied the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.
Post by donjuanofaustria
the legislative intent of Calif's anti-
discrimination law was to prevent job and housing discrimination, not
permit marriage...
Useless point.
Post by donjuanofaustria
Regardless of your opinion, it was wrong for the
court to negate the law...
The Supreme Court of California has the power to negate legislated
law.
Post by donjuanofaustria
the U.S. Constitution had to be amended to
make blacks citizens ,to give women and 18 yr olds the right to vote
(fed).;
It did not "have to be amended". The U.S. Constitution was amended to
protect rights of groups of people. Amendments are ratified by the
states.
Post by donjuanofaustria
A court is not entitled to award rights which NEVER previously
existed anywhere in the history of the U.S. or in English common law...
Incorrect.
juanjo
2008-06-08 03:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by donjuanofaustria
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
******The CA Supreme Court overstepped the legislature and prior
voter's ballot initiative...gays Do Not have a right to marry under
the U.S. Constitution...the legislative intent of Calif's anti-
discrimination law was to prevent job and housing discrimination, not
permit marriage...Regardless of your opinion, it was wrong for the
court to negate the law...the U.S. Constitution had to be amended to
make blacks citizens ,to give women and 18 yr olds the right to vote
(fed).; A court is not entitled to award rights which NEVER previously
existed anywhere in the history of the U.S. or in English common law...
As noted by others in many places, there are no federal laws
establishing a right to marry. Marriage is under the purview of the
separate states. The US Constitution had to be amended to allow for
women to vote in Federal elections, Wyoming has already extended the
vote to women while it was a territory and continued to do so as a
state. Similarly the right to vote was extended to 18 year olds. The
recognition of anyone as a citizen of the country is under the purview
of the US Constitution, hence the amendment to outlaw slavery and
protect the rights of black Americans.

The individual states can under their own constitutions, grant broader
protections to their citizens where they do not directly conflict with
an area of law reserved to the federal Government under the
Constitution. The California Supreme Court reviewed the present
existing laws and state constitutional guarantees of rights and found
that the provisions of Prop 22 did not stand under constitutional
scrutiny. The people can vote whatever they wish but if it is
unconstitutional then it can be voided by the Cal. Supreme Court. Our
government was specifically set up this way to protect the rule of law
and also to protect unpopular minorities from the dictatorship of the
majority.

Law is constantly changing and evolving. Legislatures regularly pass
new laws and repeal old ones as society changes. Sometimes these laws
are rather absurd, kneejerk reactions to some circumstances that
exist; sometimes they are well written; and sometimes the take a meat
ax to a problem which really needs a scalpel. Such is the nature of
government. Same sex marriages will be performed in California
starting next week and nothing the right wing fundamentalists can do
will change that. Same sex marriages have been performed in
Massachusetts for some time now as well as in Canada and no wrathful
creators have seen fit to smite either location. I suspect the same
will be true in California although every brush fire and earth tremor
will be interpreted by the "faithful" as an order from their god to
cease and desist.
Dionisio
2008-06-08 07:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by juanjo
As noted by others in many places, there are no federal laws
establishing a right to marry. Marriage is under the purview of the
separate states. The US Constitution had to be amended to allow for
women to vote in Federal elections, Wyoming has already extended the
vote to women while it was a territory and continued to do so as a
state. Similarly the right to vote was extended to 18 year olds. The
recognition of anyone as a citizen of the country is under the purview
of the US Constitution, hence the amendment to outlaw slavery and
protect the rights of black Americans.
'Tis funny how some decide that fundamental rights aren't: Even when they are. Voting?
Fundamental right. Some resisted, so it had to be spelled out; For both women and for
adults -- which is what 18-year-olds are.

Same with slaves. They had fundamental rights. Took a lot of bloodshed, grief, and another
literal spelling out for that to be official.

Now we have something new; Shades of the same-old-same-old.

Screw No Child Left Behind, we need a No Adult Left Behind.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so
cannot; Or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they
have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but
will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither able or willing, then they are
neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate
evil, how does it exist?
-- Epicurus, 300 BC

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Johannes von Ebersdorf
2008-06-08 15:10:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:04:34 -0700 (PDT), donjuanofaustria
Post by donjuanofaustria
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
******The CA Supreme Court overstepped the legislature and prior
voter's ballot initiative...gays Do Not have a right to marry under
the U.S. Constitution...the legislative intent of Calif's anti-
discrimination law was to prevent job and housing discrimination, not
permit marriage...Regardless of your opinion, it was wrong for the
court to negate the law...the U.S. Constitution had to be amended to
make blacks citizens ,to give women and 18 yr olds the right to vote
(fed).; A court is not entitled to award rights which NEVER previously
existed anywhere in the history of the U.S. or in English common law...
We use English common law in Canada, and we have had same-sex marriage
for years. You make no sense.
Tin@
2008-06-08 17:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Dennis Kemmerer
2008-06-08 17:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion. As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me... WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Because marriage is between a man and a woman.

----------

So, by your reasoning, marriage should be between a man and a woman of the
same race because marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

Oh, by the way, in case you hadn't heard, marriage is between two consenting
adults in Massachusetts, California, Canada, Germany, Belgium, The
Netherlands . . .
n***@millions.com
2008-06-08 17:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tin@
Post by The Master
Post by zero tolerance
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Marrage is NOT a state recognized religious act, it's a secular act
recognized by religion.  As such, religious views should play no part in
the constitutionality of gay marrage, period.
So, tell me...  WITHOUT using religion, why should gays not get married?
Because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Critics of marriage might say marriage American style is between
fools.

DCI
charley
2008-06-03 20:12:18 UTC
Permalink
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/BAMJ1125F...
L&type=politics
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen's certification of the initiative, which
would amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, comes as no surprise to either side of the same-sex
marriage issue.
When backers of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to
make the ballot, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures, the only
question was when the certification would come.
"We're not surprised by this at all and have been getting ready to run a
very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior campaign
consultant to the Equality for All effort, which will try to defeat the
initiative. "This (initiative) asks California voters to take away a
fundamental right from same-sex couples, and we don't believe they are
willing to do that."
Signatures for the proposed amendment were filed with county clerks
across the state in late April, weeks before the state Supreme Court
overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measure that also banned same-sex
marriage and passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If the new
amendment is passed, it will overturn the state court's ruling.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already are arguing that the court should
not have overturned the vote of the people on same-sex marriage and have
said they are confident that their fall campaign will draw support not
only from voters in California but from citizens across the nation.
California officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 decision have
called on the court to delay that action until after the November
election, but no decision on that request has been made.
A Field Poll released last week showed that for the first time in 30
years of polling on the gay marriage question, a majority of
Californians now supports same-sex marriage and a more voters are
unwilling to overturn the state Supreme Court decision.
The same-sex marriage ban was one of four measures approved for the
ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justice matters and
a third setting new rules for renewable energy. That brings the number
of measures on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting
certification.
I'M JUST SAYING....REPRINT OF ARTICLE HERE

http://www.moonbattery.com/

Inalienable Right to Bestiality Found in Declaration of Independence

Homosexuals and transsexuals have made such impressive gains lately,
some have moved on to the next phase of the plan to reduce
civilization to a freak show that would shock the most depraved
denizens of hell. Next up: establishing the "inalienable right" to
have sex with animals:

Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral
in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-
sex activities as "normal," has written to a pro-family organization
that he believes bestiality is fine, "as long as the animal doesn't
mind."

According to Kameny:

Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of
Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of
Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of
the "Pursuit of Happiness." If something which someone arbitrarily
defines as a "sexual perversion" provides happiness for consenting
adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic
Americanism.

Why not have sex with animals? After all, animals are people too.

Kameny's contributions to mainstreaming homosexuality have been
officially consecrated by our moonbat masters. His "Gay is Good"
slogan from the 1960s is enshrined as a sacred artifact at the
National Museum of American History.

If Kameny lives long enough, he might move on to mainstreaming
pedophilia and necrophilia. What's next after that, only moonbats
could imagine.
No One
2008-06-03 20:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by charley
http://www.moonbattery.com/
This web site is so crazy that you'd think you were reading The Onion.
I wouldn't believe anything that you can't find on a legitimate source.
A quick search also found this garbage on americansforthruth.com,
worldnetdaily.com, and www.baltimoresun2.com (which is not
baltimoresun.com but rather a spoof).
Post by charley
Inalienable Right to Bestiality Found in Declaration of Independence
....
Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral
in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-
sex activities as "normal," has written to a pro-family organization
that he believes bestiality is fine, "as long as the animal doesn't
mind."
...
Why not have sex with animals? After all, animals are people too.
...
You can start with sex with lionesses, which are capable of indicating
their consent in no uncertain terms. Of course, a lioness might
expect to be given a nice dinner first, with you as the main
course. :-)
juanjo
2008-06-03 20:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by charley
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/BAMJ1125F...
L&type=politics
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen's certification of the initiative, which
would amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, comes as no surprise to either side of the same-sex
marriage issue.
When backers of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to
make the ballot, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures, the only
question was when the certification would come.
"We're not surprised by this at all and have been getting ready to run a
very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior campaign
consultant to the Equality for All effort, which will try to defeat the
initiative. "This (initiative) asks California voters to take away a
fundamental right from same-sex couples, and we don't believe they are
willing to do that."
Signatures for the proposed amendment were filed with county clerks
across the state in late April, weeks before the state Supreme Court
overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measure that also banned same-sex
marriage and passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If the new
amendment is passed, it will overturn the state court's ruling.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already are arguing that the court should
not have overturned the vote of the people on same-sex marriage and have
said they are confident that their fall campaign will draw support not
only from voters in California but from citizens across the nation.
California officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 decision have
called on the court to delay that action until after the November
election, but no decision on that request has been made.
A Field Poll released last week showed that for the first time in 30
years of polling on the gay marriage question, a majority of
Californians now supports same-sex marriage and a more voters are
unwilling to overturn the state Supreme Court decision.
The same-sex marriage ban was one of four measures approved for the
ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justice matters and
a third setting new rules for renewable energy. That brings the number
of measures on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting
certification.
I'M JUST SAYING....REPRINT OF ARTICLE HERE
http://www.moonbattery.com/
Inalienable Right to Bestiality Found in Declaration of Independence
Homosexuals and transsexuals have made such impressive gains lately,
some have moved on to the next phase of the plan to reduce
civilization to a freak show that would shock the most depraved
denizens of hell. Next up: establishing the "inalienable right" to
Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral
in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-
sex activities as "normal," has written to a pro-family organization
that he believes bestiality is fine, "as long as the animal doesn't
mind."
Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of
Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of
Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of
the "Pursuit of Happiness." If something which someone arbitrarily
defines as a "sexual perversion" provides happiness for consenting
adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic
Americanism.
Why not have sex with animals? After all, animals are people too.
Kameny's contributions to mainstreaming homosexuality have been
officially consecrated by our moonbat masters. His "Gay is Good"
slogan from the 1960s is enshrined as a sacred artifact at the
National Museum of American History.
If Kameny lives long enough, he might move on to mainstreaming
pedophilia and necrophilia. What's next after that, only moonbats
could imagine.
First of all, what we have here is an article taking comments and
mixing them together. Secondly what we have here is a letter from an
83 year old retired man allegedly saying that if Americans want to
engage in bestiality they should be able to do so. To me that whole
thing sounded very tongue in cheek, especially given the part about
obtaining the animal's consent. So what we have here is a bunch of
right wingers trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Typical.
SneakyP
2008-06-03 20:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by charley
Why not have sex with animals? After all, animals are people too.
Another KooK squeaks.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Christopher Helms
2008-06-03 23:44:52 UTC
Permalink
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/BAMJ1125F...
L&type=politics
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen's certification of the initiative, which
would amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, comes as no surprise to either side of the same-sex
marriage issue.
When backers of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to
make the ballot, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures, the only
question was when the certification would come.
"We're not surprised by this at all and have been getting ready to run a
very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior campaign
consultant to the Equality for All effort, which will try to defeat the
initiative. "This (initiative) asks California voters to take away a
fundamental right from same-sex couples, and we don't believe they are
willing to do that."
Signatures for the proposed amendment were filed with county clerks
across the state in late April, weeks before the state Supreme Court
overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measure that also banned same-sex
marriage and passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If the new
amendment is passed, it will overturn the state court's ruling.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already are arguing that the court should
not have overturned the vote of the people on same-sex marriage and have
said they are confident that their fall campaign will draw support not
only from voters in California but from citizens across the nation.
California officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 decision have
called on the court to delay that action until after the November
election, but no decision on that request has been made.
A Field Poll released last week showed that for the first time in 30
years of polling on the gay marriage question, a majority of
Californians now supports same-sex marriage and a more voters are
unwilling to overturn the state Supreme Court decision.
The same-sex marriage ban was one of four measures approved for the
ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justice matters and
a third setting new rules for renewable energy. That brings the number
of measures on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting
certification.
You can always tell when it's election time because the Republicans
start banging the panic button about gay marriage. You'd think the
fundies would have caught on to the scam by now. Especially after
almost 30 years of Republicans using the promise of a constitutional
amendment to ban abortion to motivate the religious right into the
voting booth. They keep promising the fundies this and that, the
Republicans get their votes and they never deliver anything at all.
They're not going to deliver this, either. But the fundies will rush
out to the voting booth anyway, to vote their opposition to this
manufactured "crisis."
Rudy Canoza
2008-06-04 00:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Helms
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/02/BAMJ1125F...
L&type=politics
(06-02) 19:24 PDT Sacramento - -- A constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. 4 ballot Monday,
kick-starting an election struggle that will have repercussions across
the nation.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen's certification of the initiative, which
would amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, comes as no surprise to either side of the same-sex
marriage issue.
When backers of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to
make the ballot, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures, the only
question was when the certification would come.
"We're not surprised by this at all and have been getting ready to run a
very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior campaign
consultant to the Equality for All effort, which will try to defeat the
initiative. "This (initiative) asks California voters to take away a
fundamental right from same-sex couples, and we don't believe they are
willing to do that."
Signatures for the proposed amendment were filed with county clerks
across the state in late April, weeks before the state Supreme Court
overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measure that also banned same-sex
marriage and passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If the new
amendment is passed, it will overturn the state court's ruling.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already are arguing that the court should
not have overturned the vote of the people on same-sex marriage and have
said they are confident that their fall campaign will draw support not
only from voters in California but from citizens across the nation.
California officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 decision have
called on the court to delay that action until after the November
election, but no decision on that request has been made.
A Field Poll released last week showed that for the first time in 30
years of polling on the gay marriage question, a majority of
Californians now supports same-sex marriage and a more voters are
unwilling to overturn the state Supreme Court decision.
The same-sex marriage ban was one of four measures approved for the
ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justice matters and
a third setting new rules for renewable energy. That brings the number
of measures on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting
certification.
You can always tell when it's election time because the Republicans
start banging the panic button about gay marriage. You'd think the
fundies would have caught on to the scam by now. Especially after
almost 30 years of Republicans using the promise of a constitutional
amendment to ban abortion to motivate the religious right into the
voting booth. They keep promising the fundies this and that, the
Republicans get their votes and they never deliver anything at all.
Generally, that works well for the country. I'd say the last eight
years of it haven't worked so well, but for the most part, over the last
40 or so years, it has worked well. Republican governance is generally
better for the country than Democratic governance. The fact that they
*don't* deliver on their promises to the fundies is to their credit in
terms of their grades for governance.
Post by Christopher Helms
They're not going to deliver this, either. But the fundies will rush
out to the voting booth anyway, to vote their opposition to this
manufactured "crisis."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...