| 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 gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 08:15:47 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"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"?
Evidently, you don't see the comparison.
1950s: "Blacks have as much right to marry within their own race as
whites!"
2000s: "Gays have EVERY right to marry the opposite sex as straights!"
Do you not see the correlation? Are you blind?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 09:25:30 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
Everyone is entitled to equal rights.
Oh dear. You used the naughty word. Entitlements are bad. The
Compassionate Conservatives will tell you so. They stifle initiative,
reward sloth, and did I mention that they're bad?
--
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: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 10:19:20 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:to%7e.3745$0V2.29@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God. Some
want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of course. God
is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or demanding that folks
love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Unacceptable language, PLUNK!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 10:49:33 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <Who@cares?.net> wrote in message
news:_%98e.5$164.2631@news.abs.net...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:to%7e.3745$0V2.29@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some
want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of course.
God
is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or demanding that
folks
love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Unacceptable language, PLUNK!
It figures you deny facts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 08:47:07 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
--
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: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 09:53:00 AM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:vej8e.4748$0V2.991@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business. But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if "religiously orientated" people decided
that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
Probably depends on what your "orientation" is, huh?
--
"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: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 10:49:38 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:vej8e.4748$0V2.991@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business. But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if "religiously orientated" people decided
that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
Probably depends on what your "orientation" is, huh?
Might have something to do with education, too.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 11:04:51 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <I@care.net> wrote in message news:4263D712.45F3AEFD@care.net...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:vej8e.4748$0V2.991@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business. But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if "religiously orientated" people
decided
that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day
and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there
might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
Probably depends on what your "orientation" is, huh?
Might have something to do with education, too.
What would you know about education, not having one yourself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 11:16:05 AM |
|
|
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Fritz" <I@care.net> wrote in message news:4263D712.45F3AEFD@care.net...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:vej8e.4748$0V2.991@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business. But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if "religiously orientated" people
decided
that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day
and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there
might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
Probably depends on what your "orientation" is, huh?
Might have something to do with education, too.
What would you know about education, not having one yourself?
Thank you.
Cheers!
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
19 Apr 2005 11:19:48 AM |
|
|
"Fritz" <I@care.net> wrote in message
Might have something to do with education, too.
What would you know about education, not having one yourself?
Thank you.
You are welcome kid.
Now, care to answer the question?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 09:55:42 AM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:vej8e.4748$0V2.991@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God.
Some want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of
course. God is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or
demanding that folks love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business. But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if religious people decided that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
--
"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: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 04:42:04 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Ah, so your position is that folks *shouldn't* know, or love, God?
Interesting.
My position regarding religion is none of your business.
You seem to live to yak, yak, yak; But there are some things you choose
not to talk about? Interesting...
--
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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
17 Apr 2005 03:11:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:55:42 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
My position regarding religion is none of your business.
But you will, nonetheless, argue from that position.
Is that so that you can pick and mix, what you will, or will not believe, as the
story progresses?
But I'm sure you
would jump right on the bandwagon if religious people decided that everyone,
including homosexuals, should take a knee and pray at sunset every day and
try to make laws that made you do that, right? Or, do you think there might
be the same kind of resistance there is regarding same sex marriage?
I imagine that there would be a lot more opposition than that, but the reason
would be the same.
--
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: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 06:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:30:32 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote in message <Yr88e.4540681$Zm5.710245@news.easynews.com>
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message
news:to%7e.3745$0V2.29@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Maverick wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
Some are *commanded* to love God. Others demand that folks love God. Some
want the populace to "know" God -- in the Biblical fashion, of course. God
is male. Many of the people commanded to love God, or demanding that folks
love God, or who wish that folks "know" God --
again, in the Biblical sense -- are male. Draw your own conclusions.
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.
To paraphrase an idiot: Unacceptable stereotyping. Plonk!
--
Boy Toy
Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz
http://www.boytoyvideos.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
15 Apr 2005 04:59:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just like the
Heterosexuals
--
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 |
15 Apr 2005 05:12:03 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
--
"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: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
15 Apr 2005 05:27:28 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in news:T_W7e.4482558
$Zm5.702515@news.easynews.com:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just
like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
And how does allowing gays to marry create any need to rewrite the
Constitution?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
15 Apr 2005 05:25:17 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just
like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
No reason to touch the constitution. If we followed it, government
would have zero interest in who marries whom. In a free society, it's
really none of the States business. Big Government creeps on the other
hand need a nanny state to regulate everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 08:21:35 AM |
|
|
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113603916.971852.7060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just
like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
No reason to touch the constitution.
Then gays would have been marrying for over 200 years, wouldn't they? Is it
the claim of the homosexual community that they were afraid to take their
perceived "constitutional right" to the SC years ago?
--
"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 |
16 Apr 2005 10:49:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:21:35 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Then gays would have been marrying for over 200 years, wouldn't they? Is it
the claim of the homosexual community that they were afraid to take their
perceived "constitutional right" to the SC years ago?
It took 140 years to get women the vote. 190 for blacks to finally
get their rights in all states.
The gay rights movement is barely 40 years old. I think we're moving
along nicely.
--
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: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
18 Apr 2005 07:56:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:21:35 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113603916.971852.7060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just
like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
No reason to touch the constitution.
Then gays would have been marrying for over 200 years, wouldn't they? Is it
the claim of the homosexual community that they were afraid to take their
perceived "constitutional right" to the SC years ago?
And interracial couples would have as well, right? What do you think
would have happened if a blackman would have proclaimed his love for a
white woman at the turn of the century? (Hint: He'd be a dead black
man)
Same goes for homosexuals prior to the late 1960s... MANY gay men were
put in PRISION if their orientation was known... so do you really
think your "years ago" argument is valid??
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 08:11:41 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Jm59e.36173$qO6.16454@trnddc05...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:2gb761h733ok7fg7r2t4clen7t1q8tmlfj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:21:35 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Then gays would have been marrying for over 200 years, wouldn't they? Is
it
the claim of the homosexual community that they were afraid to take their
perceived "constitutional right" to the SC years ago?
And interracial couples would have as well, right? What do you think
would have happened if a blackman would have proclaimed his love for a
white woman at the turn of the century? (Hint: He'd be a dead black
man)
So the cause is not worth standing up in the face of death for? Where would
we be if everyone had that attitude about freedom?
--
"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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
19 Apr 2005 07:05:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:11:41 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Jm59e.36173$qO6.16454@trnddc05...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:2gb761h733ok7fg7r2t4clen7t1q8tmlfj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:21:35 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Then gays would have been marrying for over 200 years, wouldn't they? Is
it
the claim of the homosexual community that they were afraid to take their
perceived "constitutional right" to the SC years ago?
And interracial couples would have as well, right? What do you think
would have happened if a blackman would have proclaimed his love for a
white woman at the turn of the century? (Hint: He'd be a dead black
man)
So the cause is not worth standing up in the face of death for?
Only fanatics, die for causes.
No cause is worth dying for, because once you are dead, you can do nothing to
aid your cause.
Where would
we be if everyone had that attitude about freedom?
We would probably have a lot more of it, and a lot less needless dead martyrs.
You see, the trouble with martyrs, is that they distract from the central issue,
and instead of fighting for the original cause, you start fighting to avenge
your martyrs.
Not productive, at all.
In fact, people who die for causes are a pain in the arse.
The only good thing that can be said for them, is that they tend to quickly
remove themselves from the gene pool.
--
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: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 02:18:38 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:86e0615dm6rto4hqer7don5qcr5jh3uloh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:26:41 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Heteros are asking to marry members of the same sex?
And Gays, are asking the right to marry the person they love, just like
the
Heterosexuals
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
No need to rewrite the constitution, just live up to it.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 12:53:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Actually, the only bar to marriage for a heterosexual couple is
consent and not being siblings or other first-tier relations (all
states) or first cousins (26 states.) Other than that, if your
beloved says yes, and you can both give legal consent, it doesn't
matter if one of you is 95 and confined to an iron lung, and the other
is serving life without parole, you can get married.
And who is rewriting the Constitution? Do you realize that marriage
isn't even mentioned in that august document? We are simply applying
the 9th and 14th 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: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 12:16:51 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:at91615md0k52htlh85vcu68bkmgo5020v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is tough.
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Actually, the only bar to marriage for a heterosexual couple is
consent and not being siblings or other first-tier relations (all
states) or first cousins (26 states.) Other than that, if your
beloved says yes, and you can both give legal consent, it doesn't
matter if one of you is 95 and confined to an iron lung, and the other
is serving life without parole, you can get married.
A minor technical correction - there are two additional things that will
prevent a couple from obtaining a marriage license. Those are inability to
pay the license fee and already being married to someone else.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 12:39:59 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:at91615md0k52htlh85vcu68bkmgo5020v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough. That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Actually, the only bar to marriage for a heterosexual couple is
consent and not being siblings or other first-tier relations (all
states) or first cousins (26 states.) Other than that, if your
beloved says yes, and you can both give legal consent, it doesn't
matter if one of you is 95 and confined to an iron lung, and the
other is serving life without parole, you can get married.
A minor technical correction - there are two additional things that
will prevent a couple from obtaining a marriage license. Those are
inability to pay the license fee and already being married to someone
else.
[snip]
In Michgan, those that cannot afford the marriage license fee need only show
that they qualify (through income levels or whatever they use) for a fee
waiver. It is decided on a case-by-case basis.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 12:47:22 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:P5c8e.10672$44.9235@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Dennis Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:at91615md0k52htlh85vcu68bkmgo5020v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough. That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Actually, the only bar to marriage for a heterosexual couple is
consent and not being siblings or other first-tier relations (all
states) or first cousins (26 states.) Other than that, if your
beloved says yes, and you can both give legal consent, it doesn't
matter if one of you is 95 and confined to an iron lung, and the
other is serving life without parole, you can get married.
A minor technical correction - there are two additional things that
will prevent a couple from obtaining a marriage license. Those are
inability to pay the license fee and already being married to someone
else.
[snip]
In Michgan, those that cannot afford the marriage license fee need only
show
that they qualify (through income levels or whatever they use) for a fee
waiver. It is decided on a case-by-case basis.
How progressive. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 12:52:14 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:P5c8e.10672$44.9235@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Dennis Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:at91615md0k52htlh85vcu68bkmgo5020v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@nomail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what? Life is
tough. That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Actually, the only bar to marriage for a heterosexual couple is
consent and not being siblings or other first-tier relations (all
states) or first cousins (26 states.) Other than that, if your
beloved says yes, and you can both give legal consent, it doesn't
matter if one of you is 95 and confined to an iron lung, and the
other is serving life without parole, you can get married.
A minor technical correction - there are two additional things that
will prevent a couple from obtaining a marriage license. Those are
inability to pay the license fee and already being married to
someone else.
[snip]
In Michgan, those that cannot afford the marriage license fee need
only show
that they qualify (through income levels or whatever they use) for a
fee waiver. It is decided on a case-by-case basis.
How progressive. :)
I think that it was the result of a 1950's case where the Michigan Supreme
Court ruled that the state did not have the right to bar the institution of
marriage (and civil recognition thereof) due to reasons of income or
poverty. Anyway, I seemed to vaguely remember that happening.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
16 Apr 2005 05:23:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:03 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
Lots of people can't marry the person they love. So what?
What you say, is very true, but none of the reasons why they cannot, come from,
what is probably a politically mistranslated, collection of two to three
thousand year old myths.
Life is tough.
Since when does "tough", have to be callous
That's no reason to re-write the Constitution.
Isn't there something in your Declaration of Independence, about men having a
right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
It seems to me, that you are now deciding what is an acceptable course for
pursuing liberty and happiness.
It says nothing about how happiness should be pursued.
To prevent a same sex couple from doing a thing, based solely on superstition
and gender orientation, is an infringement of their liberty, and a deliberate
and spiteful barrier to their pursuit of happiness.
When a thing that harms, IF it harm anyone, only the participants, and the
participants are aware of what they are doing, and a law prevents them, then the
law is wrong, and should be changed.
There is no evidence that homosexuality, harms anyone.
When a law is based on nothing more than superstition; How can it be considered
a "Just", law?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
