Science > Abortion > Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Professor Min" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2006 08:55:31 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/14/121615.shtml?s=ic
A federal appeals court Friday reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's
voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled last year that the measure
was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the
political process, among other things.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday
that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution
of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate
state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United
States."
Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.
Attorney General Jon Bruning had argued earlier for the ban should to be
restored, saying it didn't violate anyone's freedom of expression or
association.
Opponents of the ban "are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and
generally participate in the political process however they see fit,"
Bruning said. "Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a
constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to
begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the
ballot, just as supporters ... did."
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by New York-based Lambda and the
ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project. Officials there could not immediately be
reached for comment.
The Nebraska amendment went farther than similar bans in many states in that
it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded
heterosexual couples. For example the partners of gays and lesbians who work
for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other
benefits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLg4QZljD7YrHM/nEQK2GwCffiX2ZZHxngT6r6DerWEeHckKvykAoILB
Bork/3xed28a0Yn9cpEMcBQD
=qHh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 09:38:26 PM |
|
|
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 11:33:23 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3hd1jiolx.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore"
<CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
OMG! It's a terrorist conspiracy!!! Oh wait. This is just another
crossposting off topic post. Nevermind.
George
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 10:05:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
HAND!
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 11:50:54 PM |
|
|
<bibon@râlant.org> writes:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
HAND!
What frustration? Daniel Min is simply a well-known usenet kook who
posts all sorts of rubbish, just like you do.
And the only "frustration with the inevitable" will be on the part of
you and Daniel as SSM will be accepted in every state in the U.S.
sometime in this century. It is simple demographics. Opposition
increases monotonically with age, and as the older folks die off, the
percentage of eligible voters in favor of SSM will increase over time.
Little blips like what Min mentioned are of no more significance than
the daily ups and downs of the stock market. I sure won't lose any
sleep over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Muppet Hi-Fi" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 12:42:53 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
<bibon@r=E2lant.org> writes:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <=
CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
HAND!
What frustration? Daniel Min is simply a well-known usenet kook who
posts all sorts of rubbish, just like you do.
And the only "frustration with the inevitable" will be on the part of
you and Daniel as SSM will be accepted in every state in the U.S.
sometime in this century. It is simple demographics. Opposition
increases monotonically with age, and as the older folks die off, the
percentage of eligible voters in favor of SSM will increase over time.
Little blips like what Min mentioned are of no more significance than
the daily ups and downs of the stock market. I sure won't lose any
sleep over it.
What is rather amusing is the degree of this 'great victory' -
yesterday same-sex marriage was unlawful in Nebraska and today same-sex
marriage is still unlawful in Nebraska. The status quo has been
preserved in one State. However, in the State in which same-sex
marriage has been legalized, in the two States in which civil unions
have been institution, and in the several States in which various sorts
of domestic partnerships have been established, none of these
institutions has even been repealed.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage and analogous institutions never win
a net victory - they never manage to repeal any such policies. They
are able to stop the expansion of same-sex marriage in most instances,
but they can never roll it back. And in the long run, losing 10% of
the battles and counting your only wins as maintaining the status quo
means the war will ultimately be lost.
All one needs to do to see this illustrated is to look at the last 10
years in the United States alone. Those who oppose same-sex unions
have managed to stop its expansion in most instances - they key word
being 'most'. And yet still it has spread slowly, in varying degrees,
across 7 States (1 same-sex marriage, 2 civil unions, 4 domestic
partnerships).
And the great silver bullet - the amendment to the U.S. Constitution
banning same-sex marriage - is clearly dead beyond all rational hope.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 01:16:01 AM |
|
|
<bibon@râlant.org> wrote in message
news:cjmgb2pr0on7qfmlqiboo6nddu6mlvef26@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore"
<CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
If so, it will be thanks to your activist judges.
Bigotry is the new politically correct.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maud Gonne" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom isnot mocked |
14 Jul 2006 10:15:11 PM |
|
|
"bibon"@râlant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
Just out of curiousity, what will you conservatives do next if the people of Massachusettes defeat
the amendment?
--
Maud Gonne
One of the Lesbian Immortals
We Never Die
"They may batter us to pieces but they will never extinguish our hope."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Muppet Hi-Fi" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 10:38:03 PM |
|
|
Maud Gonne wrote:
"bibon"@r=E2lant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <=
CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
Just out of curiousity, what will you conservatives do next if the people=
of Massachusettes defeat
the amendment?
Who says they'll even get a chance to defeat it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 10:33:59 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Maud Gonne in episode
<44B85DBD.AC33FEB5@LesbianIreland.ie>...
"bibon"@râlant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore"
<CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where yet
another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice will assure
that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are staunchly in favor
of our Republican moral majority in America, and always at 100%
diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats and their rabidly-insane
Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch) Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to buy
their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out mid-month.
:-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did tell
that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be the
repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
Just out of curiousity, what will you conservatives do next if the people
of Massachusettes defeat the amendment?
Crash planes into buildings for Jesus probably...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 12:05:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:33:59 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Maud Gonne in episode
<44B85DBD.AC33FEB5@LesbianIreland.ie>...
"bibon"@râlant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore"
<CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where yet
another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice will assure
that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are staunchly in favor
of our Republican moral majority in America, and always at 100%
diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats and their rabidly-insane
Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch) Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to buy
their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out mid-month.
:-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did tell
that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be the
repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
Just out of curiousity, what will you conservatives do next if the people
of Massachusettes defeat the amendment?
Crash planes into buildings for Jesus probably...
Shove your religion card up your coonass, boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
16 Jul 2006 05:16:54 PM |
|
|
In article <cjmgb2pr0on7qfmlqiboo6nddu6mlvef26@4ax.com>,
<bibon@râlant.org> said:
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We
did tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you
will be the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
Proudly evil, aren't you?
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Muppet Hi-Fi" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 10:37:02 PM |
|
|
bibon@r=E2lant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB=
@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
You mean in Constitutional Convention of the Legislature? The
Constitutional Convention that was just postponed until after the
November elections? In order to hold a vote, like the vote that last
year got only 39 votes out of the 25%+1, or 50 votes, needed to pass?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
14 Jul 2006 11:06:28 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jul 2006 20:37:02 -0700, "Muppet Hi-Fi" <muppet.hifi@yahoo.com>
wrote:
bibon@râlant.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:38:26 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Professor Min <anon@comments.header> writes:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
<snip>
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
Another illustration of the results of the Bush Administration's
hard-hearted policies! Obvious certain people cannot afford to
buy their meds and in Daniel's case, he seems to be running out
mid-month. :-)
Your frustration with the inevitable is noted with pleasure. We did
tell that it was coming though. The next ball buster for you will be
the repeal of the SSM legislation in Massachusetts.
You mean in Constitutional Convention of the Legislature? The
Constitutional Convention that was just postponed until after the
November elections? In order to hold a vote, like the vote that last
year got only 39 votes out of the 25%+1, or 50 votes, needed to pass?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - decency wins out in the long run |
17 Jul 2006 10:46:19 AM |
|
|
Professor Min wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/14/121615.shtml?s=ic
A federal appeals court Friday reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's
voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
The people have spoken
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled last year that the measure
was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the
political process, among other things.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday
that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution
of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate
state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United
States."
Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.
Attorney General Jon Bruning had argued earlier for the ban should to be
restored, saying it didn't violate anyone's freedom of expression or
association.
Opponents of the ban "are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and
generally participate in the political process however they see fit,"
Bruning said. "Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a
constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to
begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the
ballot, just as supporters ... did."
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by New York-based Lambda and the
ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project. Officials there could not immediately be
reached for comment.
The Nebraska amendment went farther than similar bans in many states in that
it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded
heterosexual couples. For example the partners of gays and lesbians who work
for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other
benefits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLg4QZljD7YrHM/nEQK2GwCffiX2ZZHxngT6r6DerWEeHckKvykAoILB
Bork/3xed28a0Yn9cpEMcBQD
=qHh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason A. Kaatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - decency wins out in the long run |
22 Jul 2006 11:56:29 PM |
|
|
That's interesting - I did know that they had a political process in mental
institutions because that's where they all belong. I guess there is not
enough psychiatrists around in active practice to treat what is actually a
very disturbed and violent population segment of American society.
"bobandcarole" <bobandcarole100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153151179.814399.26320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Professor Min wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, "CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore"
<CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/14/121615.shtml?s=ic
A federal appeals court Friday reversed a ruling that struck down
Nebraska's
voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
The people have spoken
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled last year that the
measure
was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the
political process, among other things.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling
Friday
that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized
institution
of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate
state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the
United
States."
Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.
Attorney General Jon Bruning had argued earlier for the ban should to be
restored, saying it didn't violate anyone's freedom of expression or
association.
Opponents of the ban "are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and
generally participate in the political process however they see fit,"
Bruning said. "Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a
constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to
begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the
ballot, just as supporters ... did."
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by New York-based Lambda and
the
ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project. Officials there could not immediately be
reached for comment.
The Nebraska amendment went farther than similar bans in many states in
that
it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded
heterosexual couples. For example the partners of gays and lesbians who
work
for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other
benefits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That is wonderful, happy, joyous, absolutely fantastic news!
I believe it'll wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where
yet another moderate-to-conservative Bush-appointed justice
will assure that all future U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
staunchly in favor of our Republican moral majority in America,
and always at 100% diametric opposition to filthy Liberalcrats
and their rabidly-insane Anti-Christian Anti-American A.C.L.U.
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLg4QZljD7YrHM/nEQK2GwCffiX2ZZHxngT6r6DerWEeHckKvykAoILB
Bork/3xed28a0Yn9cpEMcBQD
=qHh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 09:59:47 AM |
|
|
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 01:15:06 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
Just brain-damaged loons like yourself, Wentzky.
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
So? Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive singles of any rights. (It wouldn't
deprive those of us who are married of any rights, either.) You'd still have
your right to marry the non-related consenting adult of your choice, so what's
your problem (aside from your mental illness)?
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Quit bitching about figments of your imagination and watch people quit
slapping you when you start ranting.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 03:00:57 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyh291lh.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
Just brain-damaged loons like yourself, Wentzky.
You don't see me lobbying for same-sex marriage or for sustaining unequal
protections and privileges afforded by current statutes with regard to
marital status.
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
So? Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive singles of any rights.
It would exacerbate the already unequal protections and privileges in
society.
Why are you against widows and widowers and all other singles for the
benefit of married persons?
The selfishness and greed that are inherent in these marriage benefits ploys
are very evident.
Why do you think you are entitled to unequal protections and privileges
based on marital status?
(It wouldn't deprive those of us who are married of any rights, either.)
You'd still have
your right to marry the non-related consenting adult of your choice, so
what's
your problem (aside from your mental illness)?
I guess you forgot that all single persons are covered by the 14th
Amendment.
Why do you lobby for unequal protections and privileges based on units of
two rather than for individuals?
The Constitution dictates equal protections and privileges for individuals.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Quit bitching about figments of your imagination and watch people quit
slapping you when you start ranting.
Stop whining like the married ***** you are.
LOL!
Read the 14th Amendment.
You should know that gays and lesbians wouldn't be wanting to marry if they
couldn't get a leg up by marrying like all you hetero marrieds.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 06:07:28 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyh291lh.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
Just brain-damaged loons like yourself, Wentzky.
You don't see me lobbying for same-sex marriage or for sustaining unequal
protections and privileges afforded by current statutes with regard to
marital status.
Once again, since you appear to be either unwilling to or incapable of
understanding the concept, what privileges are YOU being denied by the
existence of same-sex marriage? With it in place, you'd still have the right
to marry the consenting non-related adult of your choice. Got a problem with
that?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
So? Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive singles of any rights.
It would exacerbate the already unequal protections and privileges in
society.
What unequal rights or privileges? As it is now, it's just a bit unequal,
because one group of people isn't allowed to marry the non-related consenting
adult of their choice. Up until 1968 in Virginia, another group couldn't
either: no interracial marriages allowed in the Commonwealth. Why are you so intent on supporting denial of certain groups the rights that everyone else subject to the Constitution have?
Why are you against widows and widowers and all other singles for the
benefit of married persons?
Why are you wandering off into the woods again to keep people from noticing
your blatant inability to understand much of what you read?
The selfishness and greed that are inherent in these marriage benefits ploys
are very evident.
So you claim, so why is it that no one else seems to find these faults in
them? Maybe if you weren't certifiably crazy, some lady might actually be
interested in you.
Why do you think you are entitled to unequal protections and privileges
based on marital status?
Where, precisely, do I have protections and privileges you don't?
(It wouldn't deprive those of us who are married of any rights, either.)
You'd still have your right to marry the non-related consenting adult of
your choice, so what's your problem (aside from your mental illness)?
I guess you forgot that all single persons are covered by the 14th
Amendment.
I guess you're too brain-damaged to realize that *all* persons, regardless of
marital status, are covered by the 14th.
Why do you lobby for unequal protections and privileges based on units of
two rather than for individuals?
The Constitution dictates equal protections and privileges for individuals.
So, where's your proof that the protections and privileges are unequal?
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Quit bitching about figments of your imagination and watch people quit
slapping you when you start ranting.
Stop whining like the married ***** you are.
LOL!
Read the 14th Amendment.
You should know that gays and lesbians wouldn't be wanting to marry if they
couldn't get a leg up by marrying like all you hetero marrieds.
Really? Funny how they *don't* have the same rights to marry the consenting
non-related adult of their choice, like us straights do, eh? You're not
fooling anyone but yourself, Wentzky. That's why same-sex marriage is
coming. Don't like that? Better emigrate. Oops! It's legal in Canada.
Maybe Syria might take you in...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 08:43:41 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkejwmcvrj.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyh291lh.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
Just brain-damaged loons like yourself, Wentzky.
You don't see me lobbying for same-sex marriage or for sustaining unequal
protections and privileges afforded by current statutes with regard to
marital status.
Once again, since you appear to be either unwilling to or incapable of
understanding the concept, what privileges are YOU being denied by the
existence of same-sex marriage?
Exactly the same rights and privileges I am denied by being single.
Got that basic concept down yet?
With it in place, you'd still have the right
to marry the consenting non-related adult of your choice. Got a problem
with
that?
The unequal protections and privileges that are currently awarded on the
basis of marital status are only exacerbated by same-sex marriage.
What you got against single persons?
Why are you so harsh to widows and other single persons?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
So? Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive singles of any rights.
It would exacerbate the already unequal protections and privileges in
society.
What unequal rights or privileges?
If you want to act like an idiot, that is your option.
As it is now, it's just a bit unequal, because one group of people isn't
allowed to marry the non-related consenting
adult of their choice. Up until 1968 in Virginia, another group couldn't
either: no interracial marriages allowed in the Commonwealth. Why are
you so intent on supporting denial of
certain groups the rights that everyone else subject to the Constitution
have?
You should be asking yourself why you like to discriminate against single
persons, persons who are not spouses.
Why are you against widows and widowers and all other singles for the
benefit of married persons?
Why are you wandering off into the woods again to keep people from
noticing
your blatant inability to understand much of what you read?
I am not trying to exacerbate the already existing unequal protections.
I'm not lobbying for discrimination on the basis of marital status.
The selfishness and greed that are inherent in these marriage benefits
ploys
are very evident.
So you claim, so why is it that no one else seems to find these faults in
them?
Because they don't care about the 14th Amendment it seems.
Maybe if you weren't certifiably crazy, some lady might actually be
interested in you.
You think all women are into being treated as second class citizens?
Is that why you lobby for unequal protections and gender-biased provisions
in law?
Why do you think you are entitled to unequal protections and privileges
based on marital status?
Where, precisely, do I have protections and privileges you don't?
Check your total cost, per person, in items such as medical insurance rates.
I guess you ignore the vast number of uninsureds in the USA.
Contrary to your opinion, there are people who are denied one of the most
basic necessities here because of people who don't think that each person
should pay their fair share into the system.
(It wouldn't deprive those of us who are married of any rights, either.)
You'd still have your right to marry the non-related consenting adult of
your choice, so what's your problem (aside from your mental illness)?
I guess you forgot that all single persons are covered by the 14th
Amendment.
I guess you're too brain-damaged to realize that *all* persons, regardless
of
marital status, are covered by the 14th.
What is equal about reduced rates for spousal coverage?
What is equal about charging me more per month that what spousal rates are?
Nothing.
Why do you lobby for unequal protections and privileges based on units of
two rather than for individuals?
The Constitution dictates equal protections and privileges for
individuals.
So, where's your proof that the protections and privileges are unequal?
Medical insurance rates as well as tax rates are currently unequal, whether
the single person or the married individual is treated better or worse.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and
watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Quit bitching about figments of your imagination and watch people quit
slapping you when you start ranting.
Stop whining like the married ***** you are.
LOL!
Read the 14th Amendment.
You should know that gays and lesbians wouldn't be wanting to marry if
they
couldn't get a leg up by marrying like all you hetero marrieds.
Really? Funny how they *don't* have the same rights to marry the
consenting
non-related adult of their choice, like us straights do, eh?
That is where you fall down though.
Their right to marry is secondary to eliminating the unequal protections in
society as it is now.
The unequal protection of singles as compared to marrieds is much greater
than any gay lobby agenda.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself, Wentzky. That's why same-sex
marriage is
coming. Don't like that? Better emigrate. Oops! It's legal in Canada.
Maybe Syria might take you in...
Same-sex marriage is so less an issue than eliminating the unequal
protections because the gay and lesbian lobby is much smaller group than the
group of uninsureds.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
16 Jul 2006 12:57:56 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkejwmcvrj.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyh291lh.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
Just brain-damaged loons like yourself, Wentzky.
You don't see me lobbying for same-sex marriage or for sustaining unequal
protections and privileges afforded by current statutes with regard to
marital status.
Once again, since you appear to be either unwilling to or incapable of
understanding the concept, what privileges are YOU being denied by the
existence of same-sex marriage?
Exactly the same rights and privileges I am denied by being single.
In other words, none.
Got that basic concept down yet?
You're not denied anything by being single, moron. I was single for the first
third of a century of my life, but I didn't complain that I was being denied
my rights. I chose to get married, and I know that my marriage isn't in the
least affected by the existence of same-sex marriages anywhere. You could
have chosen that path before you decided to be permanently insane, but you
didn't, and now you get to deal with the consequences of your ill-considered
choice.
With it in place, you'd still have the right to marry the consenting
non-related adult of your choice. Got a problem with that?
The unequal protections and privileges that are currently awarded on the
basis of marital status are only exacerbated by same-sex marriage.
*****. What's keeping you from getting married? (Aside from finding a
woman clueless enough to tolerate you, let alone convincing her to enter into
such a relationship.)
What you got against single persons?
Why are you so harsh to widows and other single persons?
I'm not - since you didn't notice, no one's attacking me for my observations
on the issue except one crackhead in South Carolina who's certifiable. That
says something, whether you ever understand it or not.
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
So? Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive singles of any rights.
It would exacerbate the already unequal protections and privileges in
society.
What unequal rights or privileges?
If you want to act like an idiot, that is your option.
Why would I want to emulate YOU?
As it is now, it's just a bit unequal, because one group of people isn't
allowed to marry the non-related consenting adult of their choice. Up
until 1968 in Virginia, another group couldn't either: no interracial
marriages allowed in the Commonwealth. Why are you so intent on supporting
denial of certain groups the rights that everyone else subject to the
Constitution have?
You should be asking yourself why you like to discriminate against single
persons, persons who are not spouses.
I don't, dolt. That's your defective reasoning.
Why are you against widows and widowers and all other singles for the
benefit of married persons?
Why are you wandering off into the woods again to keep people from noticing
your blatant inability to understand much of what you read?
I am not trying to exacerbate the already existing unequal protections.
I'm not lobbying for discrimination on the basis of marital status.
Then find something else to whine about, since you haven't bothered to
describe exactly what these unequal protections are, much less how I'm bigoted
against singles. I *was* one for 33 years, whether you understand that or
not.
The selfishness and greed that are inherent in these marriage benefits
ploys are very evident.
So you claim, so why is it that no one else seems to find these faults in
them?
Because they don't care about the 14th Amendment it seems.
No one cares about your psychotic fantasies, Wentzky. The 14th applies to you
just as it does to the rest of us in this country. Maybe some MD will be able
to pound that into the empty space between your ears some day, but I'm not
betting on that happening in my lifetime.
Maybe if you weren't certifiably crazy, some lady might actually be
interested in you.
You think all women are into being treated as second class citizens?
I know better than your fantasy, child. Unlike you, I'm married to one.
Is that why you lobby for unequal protections and gender-biased provisions
in law?
Idiot. Just admit that you have no idea of what you're bawling about and find
some other means of wasting your time than annoying normal people in this
forum.
Why do you think you are entitled to unequal protections and privileges
based on marital status?
Where, precisely, do I have protections and privileges you don't?
Check your total cost, per person, in items such as medical insurance rates.
I guess you ignore the vast number of uninsureds in the USA.
Contrary to your opinion, there are people who are denied one of the most
basic necessities here because of people who don't think that each person
should pay their fair share into the system.
Quit trying to clutter the discussion with your personal obsessions.
(It wouldn't deprive those of us who are married of any rights, either.)
You'd still have your right to marry the non-related consenting adult of
your choice, so what's your problem (aside from your mental illness)?
I guess you forgot that all single persons are covered by the 14th
Amendment.
I guess you're too brain-damaged to realize that *all* persons, regardless
of marital status, are covered by the 14th.
What is equal about reduced rates for spousal coverage?
What is equal about charging me more per month that what spousal rates are?
Nothing.
Could it be that lunatics get a higher rate because of the likelihood of their
doing stupid things to shorten their lifespan?
Why do you lobby for unequal protections and privileges based on units of
two rather than for individuals?
The Constitution dictates equal protections and privileges for
individuals.
So, where's your proof that the protections and privileges are unequal?
Medical insurance rates as well as tax rates are currently unequal, whether
the single person or the married individual is treated better or worse.
So shut up and give it your best shot in DC, even if you're not allowed to
vote.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Quit bitching about figments of your imagination and watch people quit
slapping you when you start ranting.
Stop whining like the married ***** you are. LOL! Read the 14th
Amendment. You should know that gays and lesbians wouldn't be wanting to
marry if they couldn't get a leg up by marrying like all you hetero
marrieds.
Really? Funny how they *don't* have the same rights to marry the
consenting non-related adult of their choice, like us straights do, eh?
That is where you fall down though.
Their right to marry is secondary to eliminating the unequal protections in
society as it is now.
Yeah, never mind the obvious inequal rights to marry the consenting adult of
your choice - John Wentzky's prize obsession has to be dealt with first before
anything else can be done.
The unequal protection of singles as compared to marrieds is much greater
than any gay lobby agenda.
So get off your delusional ***** and do something about it, if it's so important
to you.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself, Wentzky. That's why same-sex
marriage is coming. Don't like that? Better emigrate. Oops! It's legal
in Canada. Maybe Syria might take you in...
Same-sex marriage is so less an issue than eliminating the unequal
protections because the gay and lesbian lobby is much smaller group than the
group of uninsureds.
....in your less than sane opinion, of course.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 01:18:52 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 03:21:19 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation, as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poisoned or injured by
same, in such cases. Unconscious patients have no way of actively
controlling who visits them, so the immediate next of kin and spouse can
visit them.
Maybe what gays need is something similar to a living will that would allow
their 'partner' to visit them if they became hospitalized. I can see where
it would be a problem to visit if you are not authorized to visit.
Do you think, in the case of conscious patients, that informing the patient
of who is wanting to visit them and obtaining their permission would be
adequate practice for a hospital?
I think a 'play it by ear' policy would be much better than a hard and fast
rule that disallows visitation without consulting the patient.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 06:23:59 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
In this country, that'll vary a bit, depending on the state. (Here in Texas,
IIRC, you have to be at least a third cousin.)
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation, as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
So what prevented you from getting married, in the event that was the case?
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poisoned or injured by
same, in such cases. Unconscious patients have no way of actively
controlling who visits them, so the immediate next of kin and spouse can
visit them.
Why are you concentrating on a minority of such cases? (At least you've got
enough mind left to figure out that the patient should have the decision on
visitors who aren't medical staff, in one capacity or another.)
Maybe what gays need is something similar to a living will that would allow
their 'partner' to visit them if they became hospitalized. I can see where
it would be a problem to visit if you are not authorized to visit.
Do you think, in the case of conscious patients, that informing the patient
of who is wanting to visit them and obtaining their permission would be
adequate practice for a hospital?
I think a 'play it by ear' policy would be much better than a hard and fast
rule that disallows visitation without consulting the patient.
You *do* realize, don't you, that you're advocating the same rights for
homosexuals in that respect as you are for heterosexuals? In other words,
you're implicitly stating that the gays *are* being denied the rights the rest
of us have.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
15 Jul 2006 08:53:48 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac7acv00.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and
watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
In this country, that'll vary a bit, depending on the state. (Here in
Texas,
IIRC, you have to be at least a third cousin.)
Yeah. So next of kin isn't really a spouse, in that light.
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation, as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
So what prevented you from getting married, in the event that was the
case?
Do you think it is because I didn't join the sex, drugs, rock n roll, kill a
baby anytime you want to clan?
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation
rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poisoned or injured
by
same, in such cases. Unconscious patients have no way of actively
controlling who visits them, so the immediate next of kin and spouse can
visit them.
Why are you concentrating on a minority of such cases?
I guess because of the potential of their existence, and to try to address
all cases.
I thought Prorep was asking me a sincere question.
(At least you've got
enough mind left to figure out that the patient should have the decision
on
visitors who aren't medical staff, in one capacity or another.)
Well, after my brother's experience, it was just that he only wanted
visitors when he wanted them.
And, I figure if I were laid up then I would like the autonomy to decide who
could visit me.
Maybe what gays need is something similar to a living will that would
allow
their 'partner' to visit them if they became hospitalized. I can see where
it would be a problem to visit if you are not authorized to visit.
Do you think, in the case of conscious patients, that informing the
patient
of who is wanting to visit them and obtaining their permission would be
adequate practice for a hospital?
I think a 'play it by ear' policy would be much better than a hard and
fast
rule that disallows visitation without consulting the patient.
You *do* realize, don't you, that you're advocating the same rights for
homosexuals in that respect as you are for heterosexuals?
Yes. I know there are people who probably have genuine reasons to want
visitation rights.
The hard and fast rule of next of kin and spousal thingie doesn't require
the hospital staff to inquire of the patient that he/she has a visitor who
would like to see them.
In other words, you're implicitly stating that the gays *are* being denied
the rights the rest
of us have.
I am trying to equalize the playing field for people.
Is that ok?
I do not know if same-sex marriages will make it or not, but, imo, there are
already too many questionable things occuring in the current
divorceology/abortion setup.
Seems to me going with individual rights, respecting the individual is much
superior and respectful of the person.
I guess people thought I was anti-gay, and yes, I am anti-gay as far as what
I think is a proper relationship, but for those who need things and so the
water isn't muddied too much, I would rather allow visitation rights via
patient consent.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
16 Jul 2006 01:10:49 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac7acv00.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and
watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
In this country, that'll vary a bit, depending on the state. (Here in
Texas, IIRC, you have to be at least a third cousin.)
Yeah. So next of kin isn't really a spouse, in that light.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, Wentzky, are you *that* incapable of posting
something that normal people don't even have to think about to figure out?
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation, as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
So what prevented you from getting married, in the event that was the
case?
Do you think it is because I didn't join the sex, drugs, rock n roll, kill a
baby anytime you want to clan?
I didn't join whatever that figment of your imagination was, either, but I
managed to find me a wife. I have no idea of what happened to you in your
life to produce the caricature the rest of us get to see when you start
pounding the keyboard.
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poisoned or injured by
same, in such cases. Unconscious patients have no way of actively
controlling who visits them, so the immediate next of kin and spouse can
visit them.
Why are you concentrating on a minority of such cases?
I guess because of the potential of their existence, and to try to address
all cases. I thought Prorep was asking me a sincere question.
He likely was, but in your condition, you seem to have trouble figuring out
which end is up.
(At least you've got enough mind left to figure out that the patient should
have the decision on visitors who aren't medical staff, in one capacity or
another.)
Well, after my brother's experience, it was just that he only wanted
visitors when he wanted them.
And, I figure if I were laid up then I would like the autonomy to decide who
could visit me.
If I was in that type of situation, so would I.
Maybe what gays need is something similar to a living will that would allow
their 'partner' to visit them if they became hospitalized. I can see where
it would be a problem to visit if you are not authorized to visit. Do you
think, in the case of conscious patients, that informing the patient of who
is wanting to visit them and obtaining their permission would be adequate
practice for a hospital? I think a 'play it by ear' policy would be much
better than a hard and fast rule that disallows visitation without
consulting the patient.
You *do* realize, don't you, that you're advocating the same rights for
homosexuals in that respect as you are for heterosexuals?
Yes. I know there are people who probably have genuine reasons to want
visitation rights. The hard and fast rule of next of kin and spousal thingie
doesn't require the hospital staff to inquire of the patient that he/she has
a visitor who would like to see them.
That's likely to depend on the particular hospital, but at least you're
looking along the right track, for once.
In other words, you're implicitly stating that the gays *are* being denied
the rights the rest
of us have.
I am trying to equalize the playing field for people. Is that ok?
I should hope so, as I'm trying to level it out, myself.
I do not know if same-sex marriages will make it or not, but, imo, there are
already too many questionable things occuring in the current
divorceology/abortion setup.
That's not yours to worry on, being single. You likely have a few more
important things to dwell on than this one issue.
Seems to me going with individual rights, respecting the individual is much
superior and respectful of the person.
I guess people thought I was anti-gay, and yes, I am anti-gay as far as what
I think is a proper relationship, but for those who need things and so the
water isn't muddied too much, I would rather allow visitation rights via
patient consent.
Well, you have to start somewhere - but at least that's a start.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
17 Jul 2006 08:34:06 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation,
Exactly, and it's automatically given via the marriage. Homosexuals on
the other hand, don't have this.
as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poisoned or injured by
same, in such cases.
I agree with that...
Unconscious patients have no way of actively
controlling who visits them, so the immediate next of kin and spouse can
visit them.
Unless, of course, they happen to be a homosexual. In that situation,
the hospital typically does not allow the partner to visit since he/she
isn't considered to be a spouse or family.
Maybe what gays need is something similar to a living will that would allow
their 'partner' to visit them if they became hospitalized.
Perhaps they could just get married and be called a "spouse"? That
would fix the problem and it wouldn't create any additional work/steps
for homosexuals than it does for a heterosexual couple.
I can see where
it would be a problem to visit if you are not authorized to visit.
Indeed.
Do you think, in the case of conscious patients, that informing the patient
of who is wanting to visit them and obtaining their permission would be
adequate practice for a hospital?
I do think that would be adequate practice for a hospital. In fact, at
the one local hospital here, if you tell the staff that you don't want
someone to visit you, they will honor that request and call security if
necessary.
I think a 'play it by ear' policy would be much better than a hard and fast
rule that disallows visitation without consulting the patient.
I agree with that. However, where it gets sticky is when you have a
patient who can't tell the staff who is allowed to visit( ie, the
unconscious patient). In most of those cases, it is spouse and family,
which excludes a homosexual partner. This is one complaint that
homosexuals have, and it needs addressed in one fashion or another.
Either make everyone have a living will type of document which
authorizes who may/may not visit, or give homosexuals partners "spouse"
status by marriage. It would seem to be easiest to allow them to marry
since that process is already in place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Nebraska Court Restores 'Gay Marriage' Ban - The the bridegroom is not mocked |
17 Jul 2006 10:26:58 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153143246.601992.12000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152987532.066243.61840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Who cares about gay marriage bans and such?
The real issue is the 14th Amendment does not allow married persons to
attain protections and privileges above single persons.
End the Unequal protections and privileges provided by marriage and
watch
the gay ***** fall off.
Do you consider the next of kin issue that exists within marriage to be
one of those unequal protections or privileges? If not, then that is
still an issue for homosexuals who wish to marry or have the equivalent
of marriage. Also, the issue of medical benefits still comes into
play. Just a thought...
Next of kin, imo, goes beyond marriage since persons are not allowed to
marry their closest kin.
Spouses have rights of survivorship and visitation,
Exactly, and it's automatically given via the marriage.
Spouses are not next of kin.
People are forbidden from marrying their next of kin.
Homosexuals on
the other hand, don't have this.
Homosexuals are forbidden from marrying their next of kin and they are
forbidden from becoming spouses with persons of the same sex in most areas.
as well as extra
protections in such things as medical benefits, yes, which shows us that
single persons are subsidizing spousal rates.
Imo, a patient should have the authority to grant or deny visitation
rights
to anyone, because some people probably wouldn't want their ambitious
relative or spouse visiting them after they had been poiso | | | | | |
