| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2006 01:16:26 PM |
| Object: |
A Victory for Marriage |
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
*****
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 02:48:57 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com...
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
*****
There is a vast sea of Gay people who genuinely 'love' each other. Isn't
that beautiful, duke? They actually 'love' each other. They love a member of
the opposite sex as much I could *ever* love a female. Guess what else,
duke? Many of these very same 'Gay' people also love 'God' and 'Jesus' every
bit as much as *you* do, you hate-monger, you. What do you think your
imaginary Jesus/God would have to say about *that* if the dynamic duo (or
'trio') *actually* did exist? Say: 'God-damn, wish we never created *them*,'
duke-y baby?
Ahhhhh. Isn't Christian 'love' just grand?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 04:03:06 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ci65fi8n2m957@corp.supernews.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com...
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
*****
There is a vast sea of Gay people who genuinely 'love' each other. Isn't
that beautiful, duke? They actually 'love' each other. They love a member
of the opposite sex as much I could *ever* love a female. Guess what else,
duke? Many of these very same 'Gay' people also love 'God' and 'Jesus'
every bit as much as *you* do, you hate-monger, you. What do you think
your imaginary Jesus/God would have to say about *that* if the dynamic duo
(or 'trio') *actually* did exist? Say: 'God-damn, wish we never created
*them*,' duke-y baby?
Ahhhhh. Isn't Christian 'love' just grand?
Greywolf
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think you
caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My neighbors
are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom. ... .. Ahhhh,
it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ... divorcing over those
damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the hallowed and sacred
institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that gun!!!!
Greywolf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 07:36:02 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ciaggj5fbrhe8@corp.supernews.com...
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think
you caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My
neighbors are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom. ...
.. Ahhhh, it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ... divorcing
over those damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the hallowed
and sacred institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that gun!!!!
Why is it such a common theme with the ignorant to think that the protection
of marriage means that people will get divorced if gay marriage is allowed?
It has all to do with protecting the benefits of setting up for procreation.
Those benefits would be misplaced on gays, and harder to justify when it
came time to cut corners.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 09:14:13 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ciaggj5fbrhe8@corp.supernews.com...
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think
you caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My
neighbors are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom. ...
.. Ahhhh, it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ... divorcing
over those damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the hallowed
and sacred institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that gun!!!!
Why is it such a common theme with the ignorant to think that the protection
of marriage means that people will get divorced if gay marriage is allowed?
It has all to do with protecting the benefits of setting up for procreation.
Those benefits would be misplaced on gays, and harder to justify when it
came time to cut corners.
Why should procreation have governmental benefits? Would people stop
procreating if the government didn't subsidize them?
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
29 Jul 2006 11:17:59 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"nJb" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:eabrs9$lk4$3@news.xmission.com...
Fred Liken wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ciaggj5fbrhe8@corp.supernews.com...
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think
you caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My
neighbors are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom.
... .. Ahhhh, it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ...
divorcing over those damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the
hallowed and sacred institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that
gun!!!!
Why is it such a common theme with the ignorant to think that the
protection of marriage means that people will get divorced if gay
marriage is allowed? It has all to do with protecting the benefits of
setting up for procreation. Those benefits would be misplaced on gays,
and harder to justify when it came time to cut corners.
Why should procreation have governmental benefits? Would people stop
procreating if the government didn't subsidize them?
No, but the government has a vested interest in those procreations and that
they be done in a stable environment. That's obvious, if you were sincere.
Giving them benefits makes them stable?
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
28 Jul 2006 01:49:38 AM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ciaggj5fbrhe8@corp.supernews.com...
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think
you caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My
neighbors are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom. ...
.. Ahhhh, it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ... divorcing
over those damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the hallowed
and sacred institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that gun!!!!
Why is it such a common theme with the ignorant to think that the protection
of marriage means that people will get divorced if gay marriage is allowed?
Because there is no logical way that denying benefits to same sex
couples can be construed as protecting marriage and because most people
who talk about "protecting marriage" insist it is only the institution
that should be "protected" and that same sex partnerships are a totally
different thing
It has all to do with protecting the benefits of setting up for procreation.
Those benefits would be misplaced on gays, and harder to justify when it
came time to cut corners.
Why no desire to ban marriage for the elderly then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
31 Jul 2006 04:53:03 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1154330949.685975.258300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Why post if you aren't going to read the post you're responding to?
Given that you actually responded this line seems a bit pointless.
Just the first thing that popped into your head I imagine. Better luck
next time
Nice attempt to save face, but you're just trying to wiggle now.
It has all to do with protecting the benefits of setting up for
procreation. Those benefits would be misplaced on gays, and harder to
justify when it came time to cut corners.
Why no desire to ban marriage for the elderly then?
New marriage between elderly? I'd assume that legally proving they were
infertile would be hard due to the privacy case law. T
Irrelevant to the original assertion
Exactly. Your question was not as poignant or clever as you thought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
28 Jul 2006 07:23:50 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2006 19:36:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
<44c95bb0$0$1065$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ciaggj5fbrhe8@corp.supernews.com...
Meant to say 'same sex', not 'opposite' sex. Anyway, duke-y boy, I think
you caught my 'drift'. Wait, hang on .... oh my ... ohhh ... Damn. My
neighbors are splitting up and arguing which kids should go with whom. ...
.. Ahhhh, it's *terrible* .... wonder if I should call 911 ... divorcing
over those damn gay marriages ... see what they've done to the hallowed
and sacred institution of marriage? Hey! Stop it! Put down that gun!!!!
Why is it such a common theme with the ignorant to think that the protection
of marriage means that people will get divorced if gay marriage is allowed?
It has all to do with protecting the benefits of setting up for procreation.
Those benefits would be misplaced on gays, and harder to justify when it
came time to cut corners.
As has already been said, protecting reproduction is a non-starter,
and the small amount of marriages that will result if gays can marry
who they want is such a miniscule proportion of the whole that your
fiscal argument also fails to fly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 06:34:02 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12ci65fi8n2m957@corp.supernews.com...
There is a vast sea of Gay people who genuinely 'love' each other. Isn't
that beautiful, duke? They actually 'love' each other. They love a member
of the opposite sex as much I could *ever* love a female.
Great for them!
Guess what else, duke? Many of these very same 'Gay' people also love
'God' and 'Jesus' every bit as much as *you* do, you hate-monger, you.
Great for them!
What do you think your imaginary Jesus/God would have to say about *that*
if the dynamic duo (or 'trio') *actually* did exist? Say: 'God-damn, wish
we never created *them*,' duke-y baby?
Ahhhhh. Isn't Christian 'love' just grand?
Amazing how you'll stereotype, yet be the first to whine when it comes full
circle... Progressive my *****. lol
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:31:40 PM |
|
|
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.
Marriage is a religious or cultural practice; courts and legislatures
should stay the hell out of it. This is just another example of conservative
big government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:50:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:31:40 GMT, "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com>
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.
Marriage is a religious or cultural practice; courts and legislatures
should stay the hell out of it. This is just another example of conservative
big government.
Conservative my arse. Barry Goldwater would have a stroke if he was
alive to see the radical scum calling itself "conservative" these
days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:58:12 PM |
|
|
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.
Marriage is a religious or cultural practice; courts and legislatures
should stay the hell out of it. This is just another example of
conservative
big government.
Conservative my arse. Barry Goldwater would have a stroke if he was
alive to see the radical scum calling itself "conservative" these
days.
That was my attempt to throw a point back at those Conservatives
(neo-cons?) who continually accuse Liberals of being the ones supporting
big government. Evidently my tweak was too subtle or something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 06:31:01 PM |
|
|
"Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
news:818yg.5980$fL3.999@trnddc07...
That was my attempt to throw a point back at those Conservatives
(neo-cons?) who continually accuse Liberals of being the ones supporting
big government. Evidently my tweak was too subtle or something.
Nevermind the decisions have been about protecting State rights... Dummies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 06:30:27 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com>
posting the following on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:31:40 GMT iin
alt.atheism?
Marriage is a religious or cultural practice; courts and legislatures
should stay the hell out of it. This is just another example of conservative
big government.
There are over 1,000 legal benefits and obligations that come from
being married. Governments are involved, like it or not.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:33:51 PM |
|
|
Witziges R=E4tsel wrote:
This is just another example of conservative
big government.
There's nothing "conservative" about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:50:35 PM |
|
|
This is just another example of conservative
big government.
There's nothing "conservative" about it.
Yes, you're right. It's rampant, blatant, and fervent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:52:23 PM |
|
|
After the aliens invaded, flibble duke bleemed snorg
<hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> gnorff Thu, 27 Jul 2006
13:16:26 -0500:
In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
Created a ruling that will be laughed at in about a generation.
--
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: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 06:32:03 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:adCdnXzu_Zn6llTZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@megapath.net...
After the aliens invaded, flibble duke bleemed snorg
<hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> gnorff Thu, 27 Jul 2006
13:16:26 -0500:
In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
Created a ruling that will be laughed at in about a generation.
I'd take that at 10 to 1 odds. Too bad in a generation you won't evern
realize your folly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 09:32:18 PM |
|
|
I am no lawyer, but this court statement only paves the way for
homosexual marrige. I remember some passenger was reading psalm 14 "
Bless the lord, O my sould. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou
art clothed with honour and majesty." after hearing this news.
Idiot sat in a F train displaying:
F KINGS HWY
F 6 AV/63 ST LCL
F CULVER EXP
As most New-Yorker know F doesn't run express, and this was a mistake
on the C/R's part. However, in the mid to late '80s F's did go express
on the Culver in peak. Bible screamer thought today everything is as
god has meant for the good people, and ofcourse he had to get off the F
train! It's highly unliklely homosexual have been defeated. Although,
most of us wish that they were...
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
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:21:17 PM |
|
|
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 09:05:59 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
-- cary
He might be on to something there. We got married in 1972 and things
were fine for a long time. Then those gays started shouting for the
right to marry. At about that time I noticed things weren't as good as
they could be. My wife and I were divorced in May of this year via
mediation. Thirty-four years down the tubes. Couldn't be *our* behavior.
Must be because of the gays. Another American family destroyed by gay
marriage.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 04:24:00 PM |
|
|
In article <eab06t$rtn$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a
great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature was entitled to
believe
that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's
legitimate
interest in procreation and the well-being of children." Yes! In language
remarkably similar to that of the recent New York State Court of Appeals
decision, the majority stated that it had a limited role. The justices
acknowledged that their powers were restricted to "determining the
constitutionality of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act]. "The majority
continues: "[Our] decision is not based on an independent determination of
what
we believe that law should be." It gets better: "A judge's role when
deciding a
case...is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the
cases
that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with
the
judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator."
This
makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage in the last few weeks.
With
every phone call you've made, every petition you've signed and every vote
you've
cast you've sent a message that even the courts can't ignore - Americans are
determined to protect marriage.
Duke appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
If dook doesn't like same sex marriage, he shouldn't marry a guy.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
28 Jul 2006 08:36:46 AM |
|
|
"chibiabos" <chibiabos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:270720061424002363%chibiabos@nospam.com...
In article <eab06t$rtn$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a
great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature was entitled to
believe
that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's
legitimate
interest in procreation and the well-being of children." Yes! In
language
remarkably similar to that of the recent New York State Court of
Appeals
decision, the majority stated that it had a limited role. The justices
acknowledged that their powers were restricted to "determining the
constitutionality of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act]. "The
majority
continues: "[Our] decision is not based on an independent determination
of
what
we believe that law should be." It gets better: "A judge's role when
deciding a
case...is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and
the
cases
that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere
with
the
judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a
legislator."
This
makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage in the last few
weeks.
With
every phone call you've made, every petition you've signed and every
vote
you've
cast you've sent a message that even the courts can't ignore -
Americans are
determined to protect marriage.
Duke appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
If dook doesn't like same sex marriage, he shouldn't marry a guy.
LOL - Like anyone would have him ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 09:09:23 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <eab06t$rtn$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
In a five-to-four ruling, Washington State's Supreme Court today
delivered a
great victory. The justices ruled that "the legislature was entitled to
believe
that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's
legitimate
interest in procreation and the well-being of children." Yes! In language
remarkably similar to that of the recent New York State Court of Appeals
decision, the majority stated that it had a limited role. The justices
acknowledged that their powers were restricted to "determining the
constitutionality of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act]. "The majority
continues: "[Our] decision is not based on an independent determination of
what
we believe that law should be." It gets better: "A judge's role when
deciding a
case...is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the
cases
that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with
the
judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator."
This
makes the 7th decision favoring traditional marriage in the last few weeks.
With
every phone call you've made, every petition you've signed and every vote
you've
cast you've sent a message that even the courts can't ignore - Americans are
determined to protect marriage.
Duke appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
If dook doesn't like same sex marriage, he shouldn't marry a guy.
-chib
Duke's a guy?
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
28 Jul 2006 01:22:05 AM |
|
|
"nJb" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:eabrj9$lk4$2@news.xmission.com...
chibiabos wrote:
In article <eab06t$rtn$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
If dook doesn't like same sex marriage, he shouldn't marry a guy.
-chib
Duke's a guy?
No, and I think Chib owes all guys an apology. ;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
29 Jul 2006 02:01:29 AM |
|
|
"chibiabos" <chibiabos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:280720061358118466%chibiabos@nospam.com...
In article <7ImdnezChO6VMFTZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com>, Denis Loubet
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"nJb" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:eabrj9$lk4$2@news.xmission.com...
chibiabos wrote:
In article <eab06t$rtn$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
If dook doesn't like same sex marriage, he shouldn't marry a guy.
-chib
Duke's a guy?
No, and I think Chib owes all guys an apology. ;-)
Apology offered. I admit, I wasn't thinking clearly. I blame it on
potato products.
Damn! You too?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:46:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
The odds are fifty fifty that Bobby and Suzy's marriage will fall to
pieces whether Shawn and Lance get married or not. But don't tell
Duke. <G>
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 02:21:32 PM |
|
|
In article <ua2ic2lgqccu1u9sraav5lo23dstfv2anc@4ax.com> John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> writes:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
The odds are fifty fifty that Bobby and Suzy's marriage will fall to
pieces whether Shawn and Lance get married or not. But don't tell
Duke. <G>
Ah, but if it does, it won't be because Bobby's a jerk or
Suzy couldn't keep to a budget -- it will be because
Massachusetts let Joan and Lowella tie the knot.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 01:58:20 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
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 appears to harbor the silly idea that if Shawn and Lance
are allowed to marry, then Bobby and Suzy's marriage will
immediately fall to pieces.
The odds are fifty fifty that Bobby and Suzy's marriage will fall to
pieces whether Shawn and Lance get married or not. But don't tell
Duke. <G>
Also don't tell him that if Shawn and Lance get married, the odds of
thier marriage falling apart is only 25%
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 02:16:17 PM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
John Baker wrote:
The odds are fifty fifty that Bobby and Suzy's marriage will fall to
pieces whether Shawn and Lance get married or not. But don't tell
Duke. <G>
Also don't tell him that if Shawn and Lance get married, the odds of
thier marriage falling apart is only 25%
Is there enough statistical evidence for this yet? I'd reckon wait a few
more years and there'll be sod all difference. It'd be nice mind if
there was such a vast difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 09:55:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:16:26 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> 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."
This has nothing to do with fucking or well being. It has to do with
taxes, social security, inheritance, medical coverage, pensions and
the host of afflictions related to heterosexual marriages.
It's being spinned as a moral insure and the religious morons are
doing the work. That's why politicians love superstition. All that
public fervor for homophobia.
But the fact is... it's about money.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Score one for Religious Bigotry |
27 Jul 2006 02:22:20 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:hm0ic251f1cri02a9i64pg44omv3v3dbu1@4ax.com:
Yes!
gloatgloatgloat
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: A Victory for Marriage |
27 Jul 2006 03:06:20 PM |
|
|
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?
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.
Americans are westerner Talibans... Why do you care so much about gays,
anyway? Are you one?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
