| 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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 04:36:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:49 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
caddy: <<Do really ugly people have a right to marry even though
nobody wants
them?
Yes, they do. Like all heterosexual people, they can marry those they
love who will have them.
It's a behavioral thing. Your choice of behavior (homosexual) prevents
you from enjoying all the benefits of being an American. It's the same
dilemma that many religious people face when their religious behavior
prevents them for consuming alcohol, eating a nice BLT sandwich or
driving cars. See how that works, sweety...its a behavioral thing.
That would be fine, if homosexuality were a choice. But it's not. My
proof? My homosexual friends say so. That's proof enough for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:57:49 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 23:59:49 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
caddy: <<Do really ugly people have a right to marry even though
nobody wants
them?
Yes, they do. Like all heterosexual people, they can marry those they
love who will have them.
It's a behavioral thing. Your choice of behavior (homosexual) prevents
you from enjoying all the benefits of being an American. It's the same
dilemma that many religious people face when their religious behavior
prevents them for consuming alcohol, eating a nice BLT sandwich or
driving cars. See how that works, sweety...its a behavioral thing.
That would be fine, if homosexuality were a choice. But it's not. My
proof? My homosexual friends say so. That's proof enough for me.
All these people, who claim homosexuality is a choice, I wonder how many
of them actually made their choice not to be gay, that in the past they
were attracted to other men, but in some way said to themselves "I am
going to go straight"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:12:17 AM |
|
|
w: <<<t's a behavioral thing. Your choice of behavior (homosexual)
prevents
you from enjoying all the benefits of being an American.
1. And yet the behavior of an, for example, adulterer allows for
marriage. That's not just. And YOU don't care, or else you would be
doing something about that.
2. So sexual orientation is just behavior? I'll believe that you
believe that when you perform a little experiment and date men for a
month.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:44:26 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2005 08:12:17 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<<t's a behavioral thing. Your choice of behavior (homosexual)
prevents
you from enjoying all the benefits of being an American.
1. And yet the behavior of an, for example, adulterer allows for
marriage. That's not just. And YOU don't care, or else you would be
doing something about that.
I am. I'm not an adulterer.
2. So sexual orientation is just behavior? I'll believe that you
believe that when you perform a little experiment and date men for a
month.
I choose not to behave that way. You can do the same with regards to
your PERVERTED sexual behavior.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 10:27:42 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 14:46:15 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<> No, you didn't. If you were only allowed to marry those
you couldn't
love, would you consider that just?
Marksman: <<You have the same right to marry as any other US citizen.
You still didn't answer the question: If you were only allowed to
marry those who you couldn't love, would you consider that just?
Who you are sexually attracted to does not produce a compelling reason
for the state to amend or make legislation. Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people. Most people who marry are not
homosexuals (even in those third world countries and the one backward
SU state that permits SSM.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 09:13:36 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:27:42 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On 20 Apr 2005 14:46:15 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<> No, you didn't. If you were only allowed to marry those
you couldn't
love, would you consider that just?
Marksman: <<You have the same right to marry as any other US citizen.
You still didn't answer the question: If you were only allowed to
marry those who you couldn't love, would you consider that just?
Who you are sexually attracted to does not produce a compelling reason
for the state to amend or make legislation. Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people. Most people who marry are not
homosexuals (even in those third world countries and the one backward
SU state that permits SSM.)
You have it backwards about this. The state needs to show a
compelling legal or social cause to *stop* people from doing
something, or it is allowed. Read the IX th Amendment.
So, you consider Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium to be Third
World nations? As for the "backwards" Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
do you recall that this is where our revolution began?
You are the backwards one, old son. And I'm still waiting for you to
produce any law from any state requiring fertility for a marriage
license.
--
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: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 02:20:37 AM |
|
|
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 02:31:39 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 02:35:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 03:28:16 AM |
|
|
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 03:32:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:31:01 AM |
|
|
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is against
SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to the
concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that would
be changed negatively.
That's precisely the legal requirement that opponents of same-sex marriage
must satisfy. They're required to show why same-sex couples should not be
allowed to marry (the term is 'compelling state interest'). The expert legal
teams in Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts and Canada were unable to do
that.
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex marriage.
The high-profile opponents of same-sex marriage, up to and including
President Bush, have publicly admitted that the only way to prevent same-sex
marriage is through a Constitutional amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 04:17:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:31:01 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex marriage.
You are confused, boy. Excepting for Massachusetts there is no same
sex marriage in the US. Therefore there is nothing to ban.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 04:48:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:31:01 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex marriage.
You are confused, boy. Excepting for Massachusetts there is no same
sex marriage in the US. Therefore there is nothing to ban.
This is not true. Vemont allows Civil Unions. Maine, New Jersey,
California and Hawaii have Domestic Partnership laws, and in the states
of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin, marriage goes
largely undefined.
However, the every other state (map here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Marriage_usa.png ), it is
illegal by either state Constituion or by statutes.
It is banned in those other states, so therefore, your saying that
"there is nothing to ban" is untrue.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 09:43:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:31:01 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex marriage.
You are confused, boy. Excepting for Massachusetts there is no same
sex marriage in the US. Therefore there is nothing to ban.
Head up *****.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 09:42:03 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:42690D7E.84429912@bcpl.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:31:01 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex
marriage.
You are confused, boy. Excepting for Massachusetts there is no same
sex marriage in the US. Therefore there is nothing to ban.
Head up *****.
Another LIEberal with nothing but childish insults and denial of facts, no
surprise there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 11:56:02 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:42690D7E.84429912@bcpl.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:31:01 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
The fact is that there is no legally valid reason to ban same-sex
marriage.
You are confused, boy. Excepting for Massachusetts there is no same
sex marriage in the US. Therefore there is nothing to ban.
Head up *****.
That's why the idiot's in my killfile.
That and snipping stuff without noting it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 05:32:12 AM |
|
|
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
I'm looking for someone who is against SSM to substantiate the claim that
SSM will do something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization,
or to something else that would be changed negatively.
Their sense of entitlement & privilege will shrivel - *that's* what will be
"changed negatively".
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:40:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:32:12 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
I'm looking for someone who is against SSM to substantiate the claim that
SSM will do something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization,
or to something else that would be changed negatively.
Their sense of entitlement & privilege will shrivel - *that's* what will be
"changed negatively".
Not nearly as much as yours will when all you get is civil unions. And
that's the way it's going to be.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 05:55:23 AM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
I'm looking for someone who is against SSM to substantiate the claim that
SSM will do something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization,
or to something else that would be changed negatively.
Their sense of entitlement & privilege will shrivel - *that's* what will be
"changed negatively".
Sorry, I meant to ask for a serious response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 06:54:12 AM |
|
|
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d480qr$1rm$1@services.kq.no...
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
I'm looking for someone who is against SSM to substantiate the claim that
SSM will do something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization,
or to something else that would be changed negatively.
Their sense of entitlement & privilege will shrivel - *that's* what will
be "changed negatively".
Sorry, I meant to ask for a serious response.
I *was* serious.
I guess you were looking for a *substantive* result!
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 06:55:58 AM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d480qr$1rm$1@services.kq.no...
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d47oet$4kj$1@services.kq.no...
I'm looking for someone who is against SSM to substantiate the claim that
SSM will do something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization,
or to something else that would be changed negatively.
Their sense of entitlement & privilege will shrivel - *that's* what will
be "changed negatively".
Sorry, I meant to ask for a serious response.
I *was* serious.
I guess you were looking for a *substantive* result!
I apologize again. I wanted an *adult* response.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 04:41:45 AM |
|
|
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.
They'll just bring up the out-of-wedlock births going on in the
Netherlands as proof of the "harm" SSM will do to America....except, of
course, that OoW births skyrocketed a decade BEFORE even the first case
showed up in court.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:14:04 AM |
|
|
Duke: <<That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone
who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.>>
This will never happen, of course, as I'm sure you're aware.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:35:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.
How same-sex marriage threatens liberty
We are engaged in the hottest political debate of our time; that is,
whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples or
other alternatives.
Everything from morality, legal benefits, the impact on children,
public schools, government and private businesses have been discussed
in the media. Incredibly, almost no attention has been focused on the
very real threats to our civil and religious liberties.
Specifically, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status given to thousands of
churches, nursing homes, schools, ministries, universities and radio
stations may be at risk if an organization "discriminates" against a
legally protected status, such as same-sex marriage.
What does this mean? If gay marriage is legalized, then any church or
religious organization that doesn't agree with same-sex marriage will
likely come under intense pressure to either change their views or go
silent. Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that fail to
agree with same-sex marriage will be at risk.
That is already happening in Canada. Recently, judges imposed same-sex
marriage in three Canadian provinces. Today, the Canadian Parliament
is
discussing a bill (C-250) that Canadians claim could be used to outlaw
parts of the Bible as hate speech and could criminalize individuals in
organizations that teach that same-sex contact is immoral. Same-sex
marriage is a serious threat to our civil and religious liberties and
could lead to widespread discrimination against people who disagree.
John Leo, columnist for U.S. News and World Report, wrote on April 19,
"The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad
listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights
offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who
placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.
"In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month
suspension, without pay, of a high-school teacher who wrote letters to
a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation
but
a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris
Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing
thoughts that the state defines as improper."
Persecution isn't confined to Canada. Leo went on to write, "In
Sweden,
sermons are explicitly covered by an anti-hate-speech law passed to
protect homosexuals. The Swedish chancellor of justice said any
reference to the Bible's stating that homosexuality is sinful might be
a criminal offense, and a Pentecostal minister is already facing
charges.
"In Britain, police investigated Anglican Bishop Peter Forster of
Chester after he told a local paper: 'Some people who are primarily
homosexual can reorient themselves. I would encourage them to
consider that as an option.' Police sent a copy of his remarks to
prosecutors, but the case was dropped.
"In Ireland last August, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned
that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriage
could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation.
"In the United States, the dominance of anti-bias laws and rules
limiting free speech and free exercise of religion is clear on
campuses, not so clear in the real world. Still, First Amendment
arguments are losing ground to anti-discrimination laws in many
areas."
(John Leo, "Stomping on Free Speech")
A court in England ruled in January that a preacher who held up a sign
in a town square calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and
immorality was "properly convicted" of a criminal offense.
The newly elected socialist prime minister of Spain said, "We are
going
to present a bill to set gay unions on the same footing as marriage.
.... It will have the same legal effect [as marriage]."
Canada. Sweden. Ireland. England. Spain. Now, the United States.
What is incredible is the speed at which our culture has moved on this
issue. Only one year ago no major political figure, from either party,
would have publicly embraced same-sex marriage - that was viewed as
political suicide. Neither the media nor the mainstream press was
pushing gay marriage. So, what happened?
June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court released Lawrence v. Texas, which
held that states could not outlaw sodomy. Justice Scalia in his
dissent
wrote, almost prophetically, that Lawrence could lead to gay marriage.
The court's majority dismissed Scalia's concerns as overreaching scare
tactics. Five months later, Scalia, to his dismay, was proven right
when the Goodridge decision ordered the Massachusetts Legislature to
legalize gay marriage by May 17, 2004.
Six legal scholars wrote of Massachusetts' effort to equate civil
unions with man/woman marriage, "Churches and other religious
organizations that fail to embrace civil unions as indistinct from
marriage may be forced to retreat from their practices, or else face
enormous legal pressure to change their views. Precedent from our own
history and that of other nations suggests that religious institutions
could even be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic
accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating
human-rights codes or hate-speech laws." (Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy)
How could this happen? A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision said, "An
institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and
not be contrary to established public policy. To warrant exemption
under 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified
in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the
public interest." (Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 US 574
(1982))
If courts buy the argument (opposed today by many African-Americans)
that the plight of gays is equal to that of oppressed racial
minorities, then the courts may find a "public interest." That finding
could lead to a denial of tax-exempt status to organizations that
oppose same-sex marriage.
We have a window of opportunity here in Minnesota to act before May
17.
On that day, the Minnesota Constitution requires that the Legislature
adjourn its business, ironically the same day that same-sex marriage
will be legalized in Massachusetts for the first time in the history
of our nation.
I am the Senate author of SF 2715, the constitutional amendment
allowing the people to vote on marriage. This bill, authored by Rep.
Mary Liz Holberg, passed overwhelmingly 88-42 in the Minnesota House
of
Representatives on a bi-partisan vote. Gov. Tim Pawlenty supports this
bill. Now the challenge is in the Minnesota State Senate. All we need
is to impact the senators of our state and ask them to pass SF 2715,
unamended, so that millions of Minnesotans, rather than one judge or
201 legislators, can decide the definition of marriage at the ballot
box in November.
With the experience of other nations as a guide, we have our civil
liberties to lose and little to gain by doing nothing. Our
counterparts in Sweden, England and Canada are giving us a glimpse
into our future if we fail to act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 12:47:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.
How same-sex marriage threatens liberty
[snip of verbiage not addressing the issue]
Specifically, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status given to thousands of
churches, nursing homes, schools, ministries, universities and radio
stations may be at risk if an organization "discriminates" against a
legally protected status, such as same-sex marriage.
The only institution in your list that is concerned with SSM is the
church. The others have no interest in discrimination at all, let alone
discrimination of marriages. But we already have the case where the
Catholic church has discriminated against women since ling before the US
anti-discrimination laws, yet the Catholic church has not lost its tax
exemption. So your tax exemption argument fails. The Catholic church can
disallow SSM, even if SSM is legal, and not lose its tax exempt status.
[snip of verbiage not addressing the issue]
So we still don't have a substantiation of the claim that SSM will do
something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to
something else that would be changed negatively.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 06:03:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:47:31 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
It stops two gay people who are in love from getting married. That
makes them sad. That is bad.
That's not what I meant, of course. I'm looking for someone who is
against SSM to substantiate the claim that SSM will do something bad to
the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to something else that
would be changed negatively.
How same-sex marriage threatens liberty
[snip of verbiage not addressing the issue]
Specifically, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status given to thousands of
churches, nursing homes, schools, ministries, universities and radio
stations may be at risk if an organization "discriminates" against a
legally protected status, such as same-sex marriage.
The only institution in your list that is concerned with SSM is the
church. The others have no interest in discrimination at all, let alone
discrimination of marriages. But we already have the case where the
Catholic church has discriminated against women since ling before the US
anti-discrimination laws, yet the Catholic church has not lost its tax
exemption. So your tax exemption argument fails. The Catholic church can
disallow SSM, even if SSM is legal, and not lose its tax exempt status.
[snip of verbiage not addressing the issue]
So we still don't have a substantiation of the claim that SSM will do
something bad to the concept of marriage, or to civilization, or to
something else that would be changed negatively.
I have provided plenty of evidence abut the harm it would do. YOU, on
the other hand have provided nothing but a bunch of bull *****
denials. Of course that's what we have come to expect from homosexuals
bull ***** rhetoric word for word from the Big Book of Homosexual Dogma
(BBHD); LIE, DENY AND MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT
HOMOSEXUALITY..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dusty.Rhodes" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
23 Apr 2005 08:21:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I have provided plenty of evidence abut the harm it would do.
Your one anecdotal point of evidence waqs refuted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
23 Apr 2005 10:12:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:21:07 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
I have provided plenty of evidence abut the harm it would do.
Your one anecdotal point of evidence waqs refuted.
Not so -- you homos have yet to provide any reasonable rebuttal so you
lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
23 Apr 2005 12:40:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Not so -- you homos have yet to provide any reasonable rebuttal so you
lose.
Well, guess that means you should take what we lost. "Our asses" you
say? Oh, take them! Take them now!!!
<LOL>
And you claim to be hetero...
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
