| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 08:52:08 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com...
That's a pretty stupid attempt at a stretch. But homosexuals are moving
more
and more into trying to stretch things to fit their silly agenda of same
sex
marriage.
Since when is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL a "silly agenda"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Add 3 Inches To Your Clayton In Just 5 Days" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 08:32:53 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3tpm4$ctc$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com...
That's a pretty stupid attempt at a stretch. But homosexuals are moving
more
and more into trying to stretch things to fit their silly agenda of same
sex
marriage.
Since when is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL a "silly agenda"?
Since he isn't a member of the group fighting for those rights!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 03:27:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:52:08 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com...
That's a pretty stupid attempt at a stretch. But homosexuals are moving
more
and more into trying to stretch things to fit their silly agenda of same
sex
marriage.
Since when is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL a "silly agenda"?
When it goes against a fanatic's definition of who is entitled to equal rights,
and what equal rights actually means.
I wonder could it be argued that as a woman can legally marry a man, then the
man is unconstitutionally discriminated against.
Surely "Equal Rights", should mean just that.
Anything I am allowed to do, you are allowed to do. Anything you are allowed
to do, I am allowed to do.
Anything a woman is allowed to do, a man is allowed to do. Anything a man is
allowed to do,a woman is allowed to do.
No ifs, ands, or buts, and no exceptions.
To my mind, that is equal.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 06:58:22 AM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:nmg561tt2j6grtha7butu2ba57d70j107t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:52:08 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com...
That's a pretty stupid attempt at a stretch. But homosexuals are moving
more
and more into trying to stretch things to fit their silly agenda of
same
sex
marriage.
Since when is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL a "silly agenda"?
When it goes against a fanatic's definition of who is entitled to equal
rights,
Everyone is entitled to equal rights.
and what equal rights actually means.
I wonder could it be argued that as a woman can legally marry a man, then
the
man is unconstitutionally discriminated against.
Surely "Equal Rights", should mean just that.
Anything I am allowed to do, you are allowed to do. Anything you are
allowed
to do, I am allowed to do.
Anything a woman is allowed to do, a man is allowed to do. Anything a
man is
allowed to do,a woman is allowed to do.
Your "argument" sounds like those who 50 years ago argued against
interracial marriage. Their argument: "Blacks and whites have the same
right - they both have the right to marry within their race." It was as
fallacious then as yours is now.
You are simply looking for a class of people to relegate to second-class
citizenship. You are anti-freedom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 07:47:38 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d407cp$a6n$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:nmg561tt2j6grtha7butu2ba57d70j107t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:52:08 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com...
That's a pretty stupid attempt at a stretch. But homosexuals are
moving
more
and more into trying to stretch things to fit their silly agenda of
same
sex
marriage.
Since when is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL a "silly agenda"?
When it goes against a fanatic's definition of who is entitled to equal
rights,
Everyone is entitled to equal rights.
and what equal rights actually means.
I wonder could it be argued that as a woman can legally marry a man, then
the
man is unconstitutionally discriminated against.
Surely "Equal Rights", should mean just that.
Anything I am allowed to do, you are allowed to do. Anything you are
allowed
to do, I am allowed to do.
Anything a woman is allowed to do, a man is allowed to do. Anything a
man is
allowed to do,a woman is allowed to do.
Your "argument" sounds like those who 50 years ago argued against
interracial marriage. Their argument: "Blacks and whites have the same
right - they both have the right to marry within their race."
So, homosexuality is a "race"?
--
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ... A
wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the
bread it has earned. ... Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for
the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. ... Would
it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to
spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new
hands?" --Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 09:38:42 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:K%N8e.288199$za2.46830@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d407cp$a6n$1@news.seed.net.tw...
Your "argument" sounds like those who 50 years ago argued against
interracial marriage. Their argument: "Blacks and whites have the same
right - they both have the right to marry within their race."
So, homosexuality is a "race"?
I never made that such a claim.
Yet they are a group of human beings that is denied equal rights. Just as
blacks once were. Just as Jews once were. Just as women once were.
You're not very bright, are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 09:56:29 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d40gpc$ds2$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:K%N8e.288199$za2.46830@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d407cp$a6n$1@news.seed.net.tw...
Your "argument" sounds like those who 50 years ago argued against
interracial marriage. Their argument: "Blacks and whites have the same
right - they both have the right to marry within their race."
So, homosexuality is a "race"?
I never made that such a claim.
Yet they are a group of human beings that is denied equal rights.
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific "right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also denied
others.
--
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ... A
wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the
bread it has earned. ... Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for
the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. ... Would
it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to
spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new
hands?" --Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 12:59:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific "right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
Now, everytime a restriction on marriage has gone before the courts,
it has been struck down. Every single time.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 01:38:20 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
Now, everytime a restriction on marriage has gone before the courts,
it has been struck down. Every single time.
That's *****. Just a couple days ago the court upheld the Oregon
marriage laws and 6000 homos are SOL.
However, if the courts start ruling the other way, that's when we'll
see a constitutional amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 01:53:34 PM |
|
|
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
--
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ... A
wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the
bread it has earned. ... Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for
the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. ... Would
it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to
spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new
hands?" --Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 05:45:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
See also the 9th and 10th Amendments.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 03:48:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
the Love vs Virginia decision used Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 the section
below show them what the good justice in Love vs Virginia omitted.
This part:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if
exercised, may have subtle, far reaching and devastating effects. In
evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical
to the dominant group to wither and disappear."
Further more it has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation,
the two fundamental elements of the homosexual SSM fiasco. You've
proved nothing.
See also the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Sameo sameo, boy-san
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 07:34:40 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:deh961pjp8jjbo7vjda58rhci4ui8tfltu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
By that logic, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who do not
want to have children should be forbidden to marry.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:06:32 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42tsp$b8b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:deh961pjp8jjbo7vjda58rhci4ui8tfltu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
By that logic, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who do not
want to have children should be forbidden to marry.
No, that's what the homosexual community wants to believe but that is not
what the truth of the matter is. Read the Constitution. Read the cases
relating to marriage and read the cases releating to divorce and read the
cases relating to castration. And apply all of that to the Constitutional
edict relating to "compelling state interest". You will find that every
state in the union had as its "compelling state interest", first and
foremost, the survival of the species and it followed that the state had a
"compelling state interest" in promoting a family environment in which a
child could be born to a Mother and a Father and raised by that Mother and
that Father. That such a situation does not always pan out in no way weakens
the "compelling state interest" in the matter. So, the argument that some
marriages do not produce offspring does not defeat the "compelling state
interest" of wanting to promote the traditional family environment.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 10:31:09 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:sn79e.4816185$Zm5.750770@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42tsp$b8b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:deh961pjp8jjbo7vjda58rhci4ui8tfltu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
By that logic, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who do
not
want to have children should be forbidden to marry.
No, that's what the homosexual community wants to believe but that is not
what the truth of the matter is.
You said "the fundamental purpose of marriage was the continuation of the
species". I am merely showing you the logical implications of YOUR
statement.
It has nothign to do with anything that the gay community (who, by the way,
want ONLY equal rights, which you oppose) are saying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 07:16:52 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d44idl$s55$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:sn79e.4816185$Zm5.750770@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42tsp$b8b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:deh961pjp8jjbo7vjda58rhci4ui8tfltu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
By that logic, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who do
not
want to have children should be forbidden to marry.
No, that's what the homosexual community wants to believe but that is not
what the truth of the matter is.
You said "the fundamental purpose of marriage was the continuation of the
species".
No, I have never said that. I have always held the position that the Skinner
v. Okla puts forth. Read and you will see. "Marriage AND procreation"
combine to form a fundamental civil right necessary for the survival of the
race. Now, ask yourself why the justice said it that way.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 07:42:51 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d44idl$s55$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:sn79e.4816185$Zm5.750770@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42tsp$b8b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:deh961pjp8jjbo7vjda58rhci4ui8tfltu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:53:34 GMT, "Maverick" >>
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and >>
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice.
And that would be in section ??????????
In the section you snipped.
Marriage has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
By that logic, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who do
not
want to have children should be forbidden to marry.
No, that's what the homosexual community wants to believe but that is
not
what the truth of the matter is.
You said "the fundamental purpose of marriage was the continuation of the
species".
No, I have never said that. I have always held the position that the
Skinner v. Okla puts forth. Read and you will see. "Marriage AND
procreation" combine to form a fundamental civil right necessary for the
survival of the race. Now, ask yourself why the justice said it that way.
And how will Same-Sex Marriage threaten the procreative aspect of
Marriage? Please be absolutely clear on this so we have no confusion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 09:44:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:16:52 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
No, I have never said that. I have always held the position that the Skinner
v. Okla puts forth. Read and you will see. "Marriage AND procreation"
combine to form a fundamental civil right necessary for the survival of the
race. Now, ask yourself why the justice said it that way.
OK, please quote the state laws mandating fertility and the intent to
raise children as a requirement for a marriage license.
If that is the reason for marriage, then it must be part of the law,
right? Otherwise you'd have 90-year-olds getting married! You'd have
people who are sterile getting hitched! Why, even people serving life
without parole could get married!
Wait. They can. There is no requirement in any state for fertility.
None. So there goes that argument. Again.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 09:55:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:06:32 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
No, that's what the homosexual community wants to believe but that is not
what the truth of the matter is. Read the Constitution. Read the cases
relating to marriage and read the cases releating to divorce and read the
cases relating to castration. And apply all of that to the Constitutional
edict relating to "compelling state interest". You will find that every
state in the union had as its "compelling state interest", first and
foremost, the survival of the species and it followed that the state had a
"compelling state interest" in promoting a family environment in which a
child could be born to a Mother and a Father and raised by that Mother and
that Father. That such a situation does not always pan out in no way weakens
the "compelling state interest" in the matter. So, the argument that some
marriages do not produce offspring does not defeat the "compelling state
interest" of wanting to promote the traditional family environment.
OK, show me the state laws on marriage that make this requirement
clear. What states require fertility, and the intention to have
children as a condition of granting a marriage license?
List them, with links to the approprate sections of the state's civil
code, please.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 04:05:28 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[..]
Marriage has been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases,
and all of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference also
included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the continuation of
the species.
How, exactly, would the licensing of same-sex marriages change that?
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:14:41 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference also
included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the continuation of
the species.
How, exactly, would the licensing of same-sex marriages change that?
Ahem. The heterosexuals might get so upset that they forget how to breed.
(You asked...)
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 03:12:21 AM |
|
|
Dionisio <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
How, exactly, would the licensing of same-sex marriages change that?
Ahem. The heterosexuals might get so upset that they forget how to breed.
(You asked...)
Well, at least wbt and the others are smart enough to not take this
particular bait, so they know the species won't suddenly stop existing
if same-sex marriages are licensed by the state.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 07:14:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:48:49 GMT, wrote:
You forget (or you choose to lie about) the fact that the reference
also included that the fundamental purpose of marriage was the
continuation of the species.
In that case, heterosexual couples who cannot have children, should also be
banned from marrying the person of their choice.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 02:02:46 PM |
|
|
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement. Perhaps you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out that "marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
Here is the case you homosexuals refer to:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See
also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
And here is the case Loving used as it's Nexus: Skinner v. Oklahoma
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very
existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised,
may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless
hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group
to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the
law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable
injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters
not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to
them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the
classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest
unwittingly or otherwise invidious discriminations are made against groups
or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just
and equal laws. The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of
the protection of equal laws.' Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6
S.Ct. 1064, 1070. When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have
committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and
not the other, it has made as an invidious a discrimination as if it had
selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.
You homosexuals try to claim that because the justice, in Loving, failed to
include "procreation" in his quote citing Skinner, that "procreation" simply
goes away and leaves "marriage" as the fundamental right that allows us to
survive. In other words you are claiming that we can survive with "marriage"
alone and do not need "procreation". Okay, I'll play. You get yourself
someone of your same sex and screw each other until your brains fall out.
Then, call me when the baby is due. I want to be there as a witness to this
earth shattering event.
So far, homosexuals have not even been able to adequately convey just what
it is they are seeking in marriage. Some say it's for love. Some say it is
for state provided benefits. Some say it is for equal treatment. Some just
rant, throw temper tantrums and call people names.
--
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ... A
wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the
bread it has earned. ... Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for
the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. ... Would
it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to
spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new
hands?" --Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 07:43:22 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement. Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and couples who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and this does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:17:39 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvT8e.4759086$Zm5.742605@news.easynews.com...
"Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113849500.744384.307570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:56:29 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
And that "right" would be what? Just once, why don't you homosexuals
lay it
out, chapter and verse from the US Constitution, the specific
"right" you
are being denied that is either available to others or not also
denied
others.
The right of marriage to the consenting adult of choice. Marriage
has
been defined as a basic human right in several SCOTUS cases, and all
of them refer to the 14th Amendment as a basis for that right.
We have covered that ad nauseum. That is a dishonest statement. Perhaps
you
have not read the nexus case. Here, for you edification, is the salient
paragraph. You will take note that it specifically points out that
"marriage
AND procreation" combine to for a fundamental right and the logic of this
because it is referring to the SURVIVAL OF THE RACE!
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its absurdity
speaks for itself.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 10:41:21 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Tx79e.367506$za2.58504@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
Re-read what I wrote.
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
Marriage has NO BEARING on procreation. Therefore, you cannot use
procreation as an argument against gay marriage. Especially since gays can
and do raise children.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is
think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Guratenteeing EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, which is a fundamental characteristic of
American democracy, IS a compelling state interest.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its absurdity
speaks for itself.
What part is absurd?
The fact that infertile couples have the right to marry?
The fact that gays can and do raise children?
The fact that the world is overpopulated?
The fact that conservatives support nuclear weapons?
All of these are fact. Where is the absurdity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 07:22:12 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d44j0p$sbh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Tx79e.367506$za2.58504@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42ud2$bep$1@news.seed.net.tw...
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental
civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
Re-read what I wrote.
The human species will survive with or without marriage.
Marriage has NO BEARING on procreation. Therefore, you cannot use
procreation as an argument against gay marriage. Especially since gays can
and do raise children.
As long as the homosexual community uses Loving and Loving refers to Skinner
as its Nexus, I can use the statement Skinner makes, "marriage AND
procreation". Anyone wanting me to stop using "marriage and procreation"
needs to simply stop using Loving and Skinner.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is
think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Guratenteeing EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, which is a fundamental characteristic
of
American democracy, IS a compelling state interest.
No, it isn't. If that were the case, one could be a resident of one state
and move to another state and have the right to run for Governor of the
second state immediately. One could be a lawyer in one state and move to
another state and have the right to practice law with no license in that
state.
In addition, heterosexual elderly couples, infertile couples and
couples
who
do not wish to have children already have the right to marry, and this
does
not threaten the survival of the species.
Furthermore, gay couples can and do raise children.
Hell, the world is OVERpopulated. There is no risk of the species dying
out...unless the conservatives achieve their dream of nuclear war.
You can reflect on the silliness of the rest of your post. Its absurdity
speaks for itself.
What part is absurd?
The fact that infertile couples have the right to marry?
The fact that gays can and do raise children?
The fact that the world is overpopulated?
The fact that conservatives support nuclear weapons?
All of these are fact. Where is the absurdity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 09:49:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:22:12 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
No, it isn't. If that were the case, one could be a resident of one state
and move to another state and have the right to run for Governor of the
second state immediately. One could be a lawyer in one state and move to
another state and have the right to practice law with no license in that
state.
In California all you need to do is establish residency to run for
Governor. That means having an address that is your primary residence
for at least 90 days prior to filing.
Practicing law is a professional activity. One you charge money for.
And the laws vary from state to state. So of course state require
lawyers to apply for a license when they come into town. Marriage is
not a profession. Understand the difference?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 01:59:55 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
BINGO! It must be the "procreation" part that makes that fundamental civil
right the homosexual community is trying to use as the basis for their
position, huh? Glad somebody finally got it.
Allowing gays to marry will NOT threaten the survival of the species.
But it does not fit the "compelling state interest" as per the
Constitutional edict, does it? See how that works? All one need to is think
for a minute and it becomes very clear.
Could you tell me please, why then, would it be in the interest
of the state, to relegate tax paying homosexual people to second
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
