duke schrieb:

In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a great victory.

For whom? Not for me, since I don't care... For you? Why do you care so
much who marries who?

I love the ladies.

duke wrote:

In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature
was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex
couples furthers the State's legitimate interest in procreation and
the well-being of children." Yes! In language remarkably similar to
that of the recent New York State Court of Appeals decision, the
majority stated that it had a limited role. The justices acknowledged
that their powers were restricted to "determining the
constitutionality of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act]. "The
majority continues: "[Our] decision is not based on an independent
determination of what we believe that law should be." It gets better:
"A judge's role when deciding a case...is to measure the challenged
law against the constitution and the cases that have applied the
constitution. Personal views must not interfere with the judge's
responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator."
This makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage in the last
few weeks. With every phone call you've made, every petition you've
signed and every vote you've cast you've sent a message that even the
courts can't ignore - Americans are determined to protect marriage.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

why do you care if two gay people are married to each other?

why do you care if two gay people are married to each other?

duke wrote:

In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature was
entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples
furthers the State's legitimate interest in procreation and the
well-being of children." Yes! In language remarkably similar to that of
the recent New York State Court of Appeals decision, the majority stated
that it had a limited role. The justices acknowledged that their powers
were restricted to "determining the constitutionality of [the state's
Defense of Marriage Act]. "The majority continues: "[Our] decision is
not based on an independent determination of what we believe that law
should be." It gets better: "A judge's role when deciding a case...is to
measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases that
have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with
the judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a
legislator." This makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage
in the last few weeks. With every phone call you've made, every petition
you've signed and every vote you've cast you've sent a message that even
the courts can't ignore - Americans are determined to protect marriage.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI
*****

why do you care if two gay people are married to each other?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:54:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

On 27 Jul 2006 11:21:17 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote:

why do you care if two gay people are married to each other?

It's despicable.

Despicable? No. A non-event? Yes. None of your business? Definitely.

So you find gays offensive? Who cares? Personally, I find your bigotry
and small-mindedness offensive. Again, who cares? There's no such
thing as the right to never be offended, Duke, and that applies to
you, to me, and to everyone else. Get used to it.

duke, American-American

And unless your ancestors hunted buffalo and had names like "Talks To
The Wind", don't give us this "American-American" *****.

why do you care if two gay people are married to each
other?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:58:50 -0600, nJb <user@example.com> wrote:

duke wrote:

In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today delivered a
great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature was entitled to believe
that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate
interest in procreation and the well-being of children." Yes! In language
remarkably similar to that of the recent New York State Court of Appeals
decision, the majority stated that it had a limited role. The justices
acknowledged that their powers were restricted to "determining the
constitutionality of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act]. "The majority
continues: "[Our] decision is not based on an independent determination of what
we believe that law should be." It gets better: "A judge's role when deciding a
case...is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases
that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with the
judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator." This
makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage in the last few weeks. With
every phone call you've made, every petition you've signed and every vote you've
cast you've sent a message that even the courts can't ignore - Americans are
determined to protect marriage.

With a 50% divorce rate? Sure they are.

And being queer is really a bad reason to marry another queer.