| 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: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:53:37 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1q2s71tf4gbsva41pq2r5hta2q9b50jn3r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:04:06 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED.
That will happen at the same time that mutipartner marriage is
approved in all the states.
Not that there's anything wrong with either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 11:49:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Given WBT's operational definition of a "special right", we can
obviously eliminate a "special right" for homosexuals by legalizing
same-sex marriages in the other states. Then the right will no
longer be "special" according to WBT's definition. QED.
That will happen at the same time that mutipartner marriage is
approved in all the states.
Throw another straw man on the fire, and watch out for
that slippery slope.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 12:34:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may be
hope for you yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:23:12 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights
as do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have
special rights (for the time being.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 01:47:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights
as do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have
special rights (for the time being.)
It isn't a special right, because it applies to everybody the same way.
It is a generalization of a right, which is the opposite of specialization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:19:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:47:08 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights
as do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have
special rights (for the time being.)
It isn't a special right, because it applies to everybody the same way.
It is a generalization of a right, which is the opposite of specialization.
It won't be here when the morning comes...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 08:18:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 22:19:44 +0000, wrote in message
news:<4mrn71hq50d0sivtefl28c3b4rg2udjuft@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:47:08 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights as
do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have special
rights (for the time being.)
It isn't a special right, because it applies to everybody the same way.
It is a generalization of a right, which is the opposite of
specialization.
It won't be here when the morning comes...
Yes it will.
--
If you're going to be in ze Los Angeles area und would like tickets to Hitler
call 213-DU WERDEST EINE KRANKENSCHWESTER BRAUCHEN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 10:51:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender
to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the
question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may
be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights
as do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have
special rights (for the time being.)
Sorry little one, but that simply untrue. In all but one states,
homosexuals have almost no rights where their partners are concerned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:24:23 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 08:51:06 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 5 May 2005 10:34:02 -0700, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
w...@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender
to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the
question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in
any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition
Ah, so you ADMIT they are being discriminated against... There may
be
hope for you yet.
No, boy, I simply pointed out that homosexuals have the same rights
as do heterosexuals in all but one state. In that state they have
special rights (for the time being.)
Sorry little one, but that simply untrue. In all but one states,
homosexuals have almost no rights where their partners are concerned.
Neither do polygamist. It's just the fortunes of having a fucked up
love life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:40:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes.
--
"Sex pays a lot better than death."
"Plus, the outfits are cooler."
-- Lady Heather and Catherine Willows (Slaves of Las Vegas)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
05 May 2005 11:20:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:40:49 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US lagged
behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending lynching, on
interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will catch up with
Europe. This is no different than any other social issue that conservatives
held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like those issues, the
conservative position will become an embarrassment to how America is
percieved world wide, generating in the end social changes.
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how
America is percieved(sp) world wide."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 06:25:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:20:22 +0000, wrote in message
news:<5fsl71l4lea66cgdv3v5bp1hsfusgamch4@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:40:49 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wrote:
On 4 May 2005 21:04:40 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jenn: <<<True or False: When WE will be able to marry those
of the same gender, YOU will be able to marry those of the same
gender.
Answer: TRUE. Thus, what we ask for is, by definition, not
"special."
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
We are winning this battle throught the western world. Just as the US
lagged behind on eliminating slavery, on civil rights, on ending
lynching, on interracial marriage, it may hold out but in the end will
catch up with Europe. This is no different than any other social issue
that conservatives held out on long after Europe went ahead...and like
those issues, the conservative position will become an embarrassment to
how America is percieved world wide, generating in the end social
changes.
Am I the first to tell you that Americans DON'T GIVE A ***** "how America
is percieved(sp) world wide."
That's only true of redneck, trailer trash bigots, such as yourself.
--
Lurlean Lie #24:
"he goes to orgy's all over the country"
news:1dcee589.0408290928.1985ece@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 10:31:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 May 2005 05:22:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 11:39:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
Gee, I can hear the desperation in your words.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 11:37:54 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <YouPiss@off.net> wrote in message news:427CEF44.1E86998D@off.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question:
How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
Gee, I can hear the desperation in your words.
Why are you so desperate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 04:40:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:39:32 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
Gee, I can hear the desperation in your words.
No, that the sound of the queers in Massachusetts, wailing and
gnashing their teeth. really carries, huh...
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 05:11:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:39:32 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
Gee, I can hear the desperation in your words.
No, that the sound of the queers in Massachusetts, wailing and
gnashing their teeth. really carries, huh...
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
Must be afraid of something there. Lots of congregation's
money being wasted there.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 05:47:23 PM |
|
|
"Fritz" <YouPiss@off.net> wrote in message news:427D3D03.31BF1EDB@off.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
No, that the sound of the queers in Massachusetts, wailing and
gnashing their teeth. really carries, huh...
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
They're called "madrassas".
Every time terrorists introduce a strategy - NeoChristians adopt it as their
own.
This is why we need a constitutional ammendment limiting the danger that
militant religious fanatics pose.
They are loyal to their churches, to the point of being traitors to their
country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:41:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:23 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Fritz" <YouPiss@off.net> wrote in message news:427D3D03.31BF1EDB@off.net...
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
No, that the sound of the queers in Massachusetts, wailing and
gnashing their teeth. really carries, huh...
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
They're called "madrassas".
Every time terrorists introduce a strategy - NeoChristians adopt it as their
own.
This is why we need a constitutional ammendment limiting the danger that
militant religious fanatics pose.
They are loyal to their churches, to the point of being traitors to their
country.
So claim the Leftist Liberal Lunatics (LLL) who are loyal to nothing
and are proven traitors to the US..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:52:52 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ff2s71dpvo58q571f5gi0o6dgvv33hpn48@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:23 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
So claim the Leftist Liberal Lunatics (LLL) who are loyal to nothing
and are proven traitors to the US..
So says a coward.
It means nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:51:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:52:52 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ff2s71dpvo58q571f5gi0o6dgvv33hpn48@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:23 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
So claim the Leftist Liberal Lunatics (LLL) who are loyal to nothing
and are proven traitors to the US..
So says a coward.
It means nothing.
You mean nothing, ***** wit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
11 May 2005 06:09:50 PM |
|
|
Fritz wrote:
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
Must be afraid of something there. Lots of congregation's
money being wasted there.
Funny thing is, I seem to recall Jesus not having very nice opinions
about lawyers.
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
11 May 2005 10:59:38 PM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:2hwge.24651$9n1.2040@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Fritz wrote:
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
Must be afraid of something there. Lots of congregation's
money being wasted there.
Funny thing is, I seem to recall Jesus not having very nice opinions about
lawyers.
Are you sure you're not confusing whoever wrote the Xian Bible
w/Shakespeare??
Susan
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
12 May 2005 09:22:46 AM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Fritz wrote:
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
Must be afraid of something there. Lots of congregation's
money being wasted there.
Funny thing is, I seem to recall Jesus not having very nice opinions
about lawyers.
I think these two have demonstrated, long ago, that they have no
interest in Jesus Christ's opinions. and no intentions of following
any of them.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
12 May 2005 09:31:20 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:428366B6.6D934149@kissed.net...
[about Falwell/Robertson]
I think these two have demonstrated, long ago, that they have no
interest in Jesus Christ's opinions. and no intentions of following
any of them.
I say this with genuine thanks, rather than snideness: "Thank you, Captain
Obvious!"
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 05:23:32 PM |
|
|
Fritz wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:39:32 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:31:16 -0400, Fritz <YouPiss@off.net> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
W: <<There is no compelling need for people of the same gender to
marry. ...>>
As to your claim of "special rights" you're avoiding the question: How
can it be "special" when it is available to both homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
It's not available to homosexuals except in one state and it is a
special right granted to homosexuals there. Since no homosexual in any
of the other 49 states and three territories can marry with state
recognition what the homosexuals in Massachusetts have is a special
right (soon to be repealed of course because it was obtained
illegally.)
It's not illegal until they change the law.
It'll be gone before you know it, boy.
Gee, I can hear the desperation in your words.
No, that the sound of the queers in Massachusetts, wailing and
gnashing their teeth. really carries, huh...
I heard on the radio yesterday, that Falwell and Pat Robertson,
are presently funding a school for lawyers, to fight the ACLU.
Must be afraid of something there. Lots of congregation's
money being wasted there.
-- Fritz ...
The Judiciary will be frustrated when the Bible lawyers start presenting cases based
upon leviticus.......
--
"Sex pays a lot better than death."
"Plus, the outfits are cooler."
-- Lady Heather and Catherine Willows (Slaves of Las Vegas)
http://www.loveandpride.com/Home/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
07 May 2005 05:47:24 PM |
|
|
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:427D3FDC.573E37BD@20RueJacob.fr...
Fritz wrote:
The Judiciary will be frustrated when the Bible lawyers start presenting
cases based
upon leviticus.......
It will be boom business for lawyers who specialize in disbarment
proceedings.
This is one of the reasons we need a constitutional ammendment limiting the
power of those whose loyaly to their church turns them against the US.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:45:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:24 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:427D3FDC.573E37BD@20RueJacob.fr...
Fritz wrote:
The Judiciary will be frustrated when the Bible lawyers start presenting
cases based
upon leviticus.......
It will be boom business for lawyers who specialize in disbarment
proceedings.
You're expecting more Willie Clinton think-a-likes to perjure
themselves.
This is one of the reasons we need a constitutional ammendment limiting the
power of those whose loyaly to their church turns them against the US.
So claim the Leftist Liberal Lunatics (LLL) who hate free speech.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
08 May 2005 07:52:52 AM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:rj2s719gunt0pbjtsd4r022rjlkr74eqph@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:47:24 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
This is one of the reasons we need a constitutional ammendment limiting
the
power of those whose loyaly to their church turns them against the US.
So claim the Leftist Liberal Lunatics (LLL) who hate free speech.
So says an anonymous coward.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
