| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 12:59:31 AM |
| Object: |
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected
by JENNIFER PETER
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4258800,00.html
BOSTON (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an attempt by
conservative groups and state lawmakers to stop gay marriage in
Massachusetts.
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs had argued that Massachusetts' high court usurped the
power of the Legislature - and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution
- when it ruled last year that gay couples are entitled to wed.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed Tuesday, and said the
appropriate way to contest the state court ruling is by amending the
Massachusetts Constitution - a long process already under way.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president
of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
The federal appeals court had rejected an earlier request by the
groups to stop the first marriage licenses from being issued to gay
couples in May.
Tuesday's ruling was the latest in a series of defeats for
conservative groups in both state and federal courts.
The appeals court said the November 2003 gay-marriage ruling by
Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court did not violate a clause in the
U.S. Constitution that calls for a republican form of government in
each state.
The only way a state could run afoul of the clause would be to
establish a monarchy or take other action that clearly deviated from
the republican form of government, the appeals court said.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
08 Jul 2004 11:19:27 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
The resolution does not state what you claimed it did.
Do tell.
It authorized the use of air operations and missile strikes
only, and so could not have authorized an invasion of
Yugoslavia (your "premise", as it were).
Feel free to quote me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
02 Jul 2004 12:26:31 AM |
|
|
jojo <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
The previous poster implied that the "gay marriage" opposition
was strictly Republican in nature. It is not.
Unfortunately Democratic candidates have to face election realities
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
03 Jul 2004 10:56:04 AM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
jojo <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels around
the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy,
which is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Unfortunately, he's going to get my vote.
Kerry could call me up, tell me I'm a "Fag" and all I'd do is
ask him if there's any way I could help his campaign.
The previous poster implied that the "gay marriage" opposition
was strictly Republican in nature. It is not.
Unfortunately Democratic candidates have to face election realities
Just so I understand: the Republican candidates oppose gay marriage
because of backward, homophobic and religious reasons. The Democratic
candidates oppose gay marriage because they have to face election
realities. That's a neat trick. (If you really believe that,
ask yourself how many other beliefs they are compromising to get
elected.)
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 10:17:06 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Just so I understand: the Republican candidates oppose
gay marriage because of backward, homophobic and
religious reasons.
In other words: They would impose this view on others.
The Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage because
they have to face election realities.
In other words, Kerry never once in his life ever attempted
to impose his personal religious views on others.
Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 01:22:04 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Just so I understand: the Republican candidates oppose
gay marriage because of backward, homophobic and
religious reasons.
In other words: They would impose this view on others.
No, they would violate the Constitutional dictates that all citizens are
to be treated equally under the law.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 10:54:29 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Just so I understand: the Republican candidates oppose
gay marriage because of backward, homophobic and
religious reasons.
In other words: They would impose this view on others.
I agree they do that, but hardly my point. You seem to be
off and running
I note you say "views" here, but ...
The Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage because
they have to face election realities.
In other words, Kerry never once in his life ever attempted
to impose his personal religious views on others.
....here you say "religious views". Gives you a nice out, if
it was intentional. If not, chalk it up to a vivid imagination.
Anyway, would it matter if Kerry opposes gay marriage for
his non-religious views?
Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN.
What? When did I say anything about any inconsistency? You
simply snipped out to what I was responding so you could go off
on a tangent. I was responding to Fredric's implication that
Democrats only opposed gay marriage because of "election
realities". My point was:
1) He was trying to spin the Democrat's opposition to gay
marriage as something less sinister when he did not know the
reason.
2) Does it really matter *why* a candidate opposes it?
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 12:47:10 AM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
In other words, Kerry never once in his life ever attempted
to impose his personal religious views on others.
...here you say "religious views". Gives you a nice out, if
it was intentional.
"Out" of what?
What is it you're imagining?
Anyway, would it matter if Kerry opposes gay marriage for
his non-religious views?
Anyway, does it matter that his position has never changed,
and the results are not what you imply?
Yes, "imply." You imply that there's no difference, when the
voting record demostrates the exact opposite.
Kerry doesn't "believe in" gay marriage. He's never once
voted to impose that view on anyone, and even voted against
DOMA. Yet you imply that's in any way similar to Bush?
That was a rhetorical question.
HOLDING a belief and IMPOSING a belief are two different
things. Yes, Kerry never supported gay marriage. Big frigging
deal? He's never once tried to impose his views on anybody
else.
As for my use of "religion":
There is no reason OTHER THAN religion for opposing
gay marriage.
Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN.
What?
It's pretty clear. Kerry's position is unchanged. As you pointed
out, Kerry is against gay marriage. As the facts clearly demonstrate
to the point that even you can't deny them: Kerry has never once
voted to impose his personal beliefs on anyone.
1) He was trying to spin the Democrat's opposition to gay
marriage as something less sinister when he did not know the
reason.
What are you pretending is the reason?
2) Does it really matter *why* a candidate opposes it?
In the context you raise the question, yes. Definitely.
Kerry has never once voted to impose his beliefs on others.
Kerry opposes a constitutional amendment. You're right, he
doesn't support gay marriage. But, he doesn't support the "All
Holy" government telling people how they must live.
He's in the exact same position as any atheists who supports
religious freedoms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 01:23:13 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
In other words, Kerry never once in his life ever attempted
to impose his personal religious views on others.
...here you say "religious views". Gives you a nice out, if
it was intentional.
"Out" of what?
What is it you're imagining?
The switch to "religious views" instead of just "views". If you
say you did not intend to use it for wiggle room, I have no choice
but to believe you.
Anyway, would it matter if Kerry opposes gay marriage for
his non-religious views?
Anyway, does it matter that his position has never changed,
and the results are not what you imply?
What is this about his position changing? When did I ever mention
anything about Kerry's position on gay marriage changing? This
doesn't even qualify as a strawman, it just plain weird how you
keep pretending I imply Kerry somehow changed his views.
Yes, "imply." You imply that there's no difference,
I imply no such a thing. There is a difference, just one
that makes much de facto difference.
when the
voting record demostrates the exact opposite.
Kerry doesn't "believe in" gay marriage. He's never once
voted to impose that view on anyone, and even voted against
DOMA. Yet you imply that's in any way similar to Bush?
Yes: he opposes gay marriage. His vote against defense of
marriage act is a good thing, I am not denying that.
That was a rhetorical question.
Too late, I already answered. Might want to put that up front next
time.
HOLDING a belief and IMPOSING a belief are two different
things. Yes, Kerry never supported gay marriage. Big frigging
deal? He's never once tried to impose his views on anybody
else.
You honestly believe that? He was a senator. He made laws.
His personal beliefs did not play a part in his votes? There
is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.
As for my use of "religion":
There is no reason OTHER THAN religion for opposing
gay marriage.
So Kerry opposes gay marriage for religious reasons? I'm
confused. If Kerry opposes gay marriage for religious reasons,
that is not imposing his personal views on people?
Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN.
What?
It's pretty clear. Kerry's position is unchanged.
Why do you keep snipping what I write? I have never said or implied
that his position has changed or been inconsistent.
As you pointed
out, Kerry is against gay marriage. As the facts clearly demonstrate
to the point that even you can't deny them: Kerry has never once
voted to impose his personal beliefs on anyone.
You cannot know that.
1) He was trying to spin the Democrat's opposition to gay
marriage as something less sinister when he did not know the
reason.
What are you pretending is the reason?
I am not pretending to know. I am saying he didn't know either
and seemed to be just hoping it was not sinister.
2) Does it really matter *why* a candidate opposes it?
In the context you raise the question, yes. Definitely.
Kerry has never once voted to impose his beliefs on others.
Kerry opposes a constitutional amendment. You're right, he
doesn't support gay marriage. But, he doesn't support the "All
Holy" government telling people how they must live.
Can you get married under Bush? No. Can you get married under
Kerry? No. Can you get a "civil union" under Kerry? Maybe.
Is it anything more than an entry in a database (no gov benefits)?
Probably not.
He's in the exact same position as any atheists who supports
religious freedoms.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 02:03:34 AM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
...here you say "religious views". Gives you a nice out, if
it was intentional.
"Out" of what?
What is it you're imagining?
The switch to "religious views" instead of just "views". If you
say you did not intend to use it for wiggle room, I have no choice
but to believe you.
Apparently you didn't understand: This "switch" of your's, this
somehow gives me a "nice out" of... what? What am I supposed
to get out of?
You never did say.
Anyway, would it matter if Kerry opposes gay marriage for
his non-religious views?
Anyway, does it matter that his position has never changed,
and the results are not what you imply?
What is this about his position changing? When did I ever mention
anything about Kerry's position on gay marriage changing? This
doesn't even qualify as a strawman, it just plain weird how you
keep pretending I imply Kerry somehow changed his views.
You're not following things very well (like this "nice out" you have
yet to explain, for example), so I'll assume that you're not just acting
dense and explain the obvious:
The Kerry's unchanging position refutes your claims. This does
not imply that you ever claimed that Kerry changed his position, only
that your "view" is inconsistant with the facts.
Given Kerry's unchanged views and his voting record, a better (though
still quite lame) argument could be made that Kerry SUPPORTED
gay rights for political gain. Not that he was against gay rights for
political gain, but for them.
How do the FACTS demonstrate the exact opposite of your "view"?
Kerry's anti-gay marriage position has never unchanged, but he
voted against DOMA.
Here in reality, the facts actually support Kerry's stated position.
That is to say, he is personally against gay marriage, but he's
also against the federal government imposing such a view on the
people and the states.
Kerry doesn't "believe in" gay marriage. He's never once
voted to impose that view on anyone, and even voted against
DOMA. Yet you imply that's in any way similar to Bush?
Yes: he opposes gay marriage. His vote against defense of
marriage act is a good thing, I am not denying that.
Bush never opposed gay marriage. Certainly not in 2000. He
said he supported a states "Right" to recognize gay marriages.
Rather than "Similar," reality demonstrates Bush and Kerry
are polar opposites.
On the one hand we have Kerry who always personally opposed
gay marriage, yet refusing to codify those beliefs within the law,
and on the other hand we have Bush claiming to support gay
marriage, even as he strives tirelessly to constitutionally strip
gay people of their rights as citizens.
Polar opposites.
HOLDING a belief and IMPOSING a belief are two different
things. Yes, Kerry never supported gay marriage. Big frigging
deal? He's never once tried to impose his views on anybody
else.
You honestly believe that?
I don't have to take anything on faith. Kerry does have a voting
record. He voted for ENDA and against DOMA.
Stick to reality, kid, instead of pretending you read minds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 10:04:58 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
...here you say "religious views". Gives you a nice out, if
it was intentional.
"Out" of what?
What is it you're imagining?
The switch to "religious views" instead of just "views". If you
say you did not intend to use it for wiggle room, I have no choice
but to believe you.
Apparently you didn't understand: This "switch" of your's, this
somehow gives me a "nice out" of... what? What am I supposed
to get out of?
You never did say.
I did just right there. I said I had thought you intended to use
it for wiggle room (ie so you could say that the views imposed by
Kerry weren't religious). If you did not intend such a thing
I said I had to believe you. Did you miss that part?
Anyway, would it matter if Kerry opposes gay marriage for
his non-religious views?
Anyway, does it matter that his position has never changed,
and the results are not what you imply?
What is this about his position changing? When did I ever mention
anything about Kerry's position on gay marriage changing? This
doesn't even qualify as a strawman, it just plain weird how you
keep pretending I imply Kerry somehow changed his views.
The Kerry's unchanging position refutes your claims. This does
not imply that you ever claimed that Kerry changed his position,
No, you do not imply I claimed such a thing, you stated it clearly
a few posts back:
"Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN."
Again, if you did not mean it to say that, you need to re-evaluate
how you write.
The person I was responding to *was* implying that Kerry opposed
gay marriage because of "election realities" (and that this was
unfortunate). Is this the cause of this odd diversion? Perhaps
you should snip less of the context.
only
that your "view" is inconsistant with the facts.
How? How is Kerry's opposition to gay marriage (which is my "view")
inconsistent with the fact that Kerry never changed his position
on gay marriage?
Given Kerry's unchanged views and his voting record, a better (though
still quite lame) argument could be made that Kerry SUPPORTED
gay rights for political gain. Not that he was against gay rights for
political gain, but for them.
This doesn't show how I am inconsistent with the facts (and thus
refuting my "claims").
How do the FACTS demonstrate the exact opposite of your "view"?
I'm sorry? You seem to think that my "view" is something it is
not.
Kerry's anti-gay marriage position has never unchanged, but he
voted against DOMA.
I am saying that Kerry opposes gay marriage. He does. The
"FACTS" support that fully. I am not saying he did not vote
against DOMA.
Here in reality, the facts actually support Kerry's stated position.
That is to say, he is personally against gay marriage, but he's
also against the federal government imposing such a view on the
people and the states.
That's a nice opinion. Kerry opposes gay marriage, for what you
say must be religious reasons. You use whatever means you must
to stomach that.
Kerry doesn't "believe in" gay marriage. He's never once
voted to impose that view on anyone, and even voted against
DOMA. Yet you imply that's in any way similar to Bush?
Yes: he opposes gay marriage. His vote against defense of
marriage act is a good thing, I am not denying that.
Bush never opposed gay marriage. Certainly not in 2000. He
said he supported a states "Right" to recognize gay marriages.
Cite? I don't doubt it, I just don't know when/where he said it.
Rather than "Similar," reality demonstrates Bush and Kerry
are polar opposites.
On the one hand we have Kerry who always personally opposed
gay marriage, yet refusing to codify those beliefs within the law,
and on the other hand we have Bush claiming to support gay
marriage, even as he strives tirelessly to constitutionally strip
gay people of their rights as citizens.
Polar opposites.
Does Kerry oppose gay marriage? Yes. That is my "view". That is
my "claim", period. I have already stated several times that Kerry
is better than Bush. I have also said that Kerry leaves much
to be desired. Why this last statement is such a big deal is beyond
me.
HOLDING a belief and IMPOSING a belief are two different
things. Yes, Kerry never supported gay marriage. Big frigging
deal? He's never once tried to impose his views on anybody
else.
You honestly believe that?
I don't have to take anything on faith. Kerry does have a voting
record. He voted for ENDA and against DOMA.
Stick to reality, kid, instead of pretending you read minds.
Chuckle.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
05 Jul 2004 11:15:45 PM |
|
|
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Apparently you didn't understand: This "switch" of your's, this
somehow gives me a "nice out" of... what? What am I supposed
to get out of?
You never did say.
I did just right there. I said I had thought you intended to use
it for wiggle room (ie so you could say that the views imposed by
Kerry weren't religious). If you did not intend such a thing
I said I had to believe you. Did you miss that part?
It wasn't there. You mentioned "wiggle room," but never explained
why you imagined I would need (or want) "wiggle room."
The Kerry's unchanging position refutes your claims. This does
not imply that you ever claimed that Kerry changed his position,
No, you do not imply I claimed such a thing, you stated it clearly
a few posts back:
"Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN."
Great. So you really are an idiot. It's not just an act.
The "inconsistency" back then would have been an anti gay
marriage politician voting against DOMA. That is, as you
appear to be having difficulty imagining someone being personally
against something on religious grounds, even as he's also against
the idea of the federal government imposing restrictions on the
people & states.
Again, if you did not mean it to say that, you need to re-evaluate
how you write.
I didn't write you. You never quoted me saying anything like it.
You're insane.
The person I was responding to *was* implying that Kerry
opposed gay marriage because of "election realities" (and
that this was unfortunate).
I'm certain that's why he feels it necessary to articulate his position.
Yet, his position is unchanged.
Bush, on the other hand, has now held three separate & distinct
positions on the same issue, wildly jumping from one position
to another.
First he supported a states "Right" to recognize gay marriages.
Then he was against any such "Right," but supported gay civil
unions. Then he decided he was against even civil unions (or
any other legislation meant to grant gay couples the rights and/or
benefits of a married couple).
How? How is Kerry's opposition to gay marriage (which is my
"view") inconsistent with the fact that Kerry never changed his
position on gay marriage?
Kerry has always opposed federal restrictions. As I pointed out,
he is in the same position as an atheist who supports religious
freedoms. Although such an atheist would have no personal use
for religious beliefs -- and might on a personal level recommend
avoiding religion all together -- he could still respect & protect
an individuals "Right" to believe as he may.
Given Kerry's unchanged views and his voting record, a better (though
still quite lame) argument could be made that Kerry SUPPORTED
gay rights for political gain. Not that he was against gay rights for
political gain, but for them.
This doesn't show how I am inconsistent with the facts (and thus
refuting my "claims").
You implied that there was no difference between the Democrats and
the Republicans, when in reality Bush & Kerry are polar opposites
on this issue.
Kerry's position is consistent, unchanged.
Bush has already changed his position twice.
Kerry never "believed in" gay marriage, never personally supported
it.
Bush supported gay marriage.
Kerry never acted to impose his personal beliefs on anybody.
Bush is working tirelessly to impose his latest position on the nation.
Kerry's anti-gay marriage position has never unchanged, but he
voted against DOMA.
I am saying that Kerry opposes gay marriage. He does. The
"FACTS" support that fully. I am not saying he did not vote
against DOMA.
You implied that there was no difference bewteen the Democrats and
the Republicans, when clearly there is a huge difference.
Here in reality, the facts actually support Kerry's stated position.
That is to say, he is personally against gay marriage, but he's
also against the federal government imposing such a view on the
people and the states.
That's a nice opinion. Kerry opposes gay marriage, for what you
say must be religious reasons. You use whatever means you must
to stomach that.
Again, I'm sticking with the facts here. Kerry had every opportunity
to vote for DOMA and against ENDA in the Senate, and he did not.
The facts -- not my stomach -- dictate my views.
You, on the other hand, and appear to base your position on the
belief that you may read minds.
Bush never opposed gay marriage. Certainly not in 2000. He
said he supported a states "Right" to recognize gay marriages.
Cite? I don't doubt it, I just don't know when/where he said it.
| Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would
| suggest to that state not to approve it.
|
|A: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in
| this state's issue.
| Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
06 Jul 2004 06:43:03 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"jojo" <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote
Apparently you didn't understand: This "switch" of your's, this
somehow gives me a "nice out" of... what? What am I supposed
to get out of?
You never did say.
I did just right there. I said I had thought you intended to use
it for wiggle room (ie so you could say that the views imposed by
Kerry weren't religious). If you did not intend such a thing
I said I had to believe you. Did you miss that part?
It wasn't there. You mentioned "wiggle room," but never explained
why you imagined I would need (or want) "wiggle room."
Thought it would be obvious given the context. Guess not. Mea culpa.
The Kerry's unchanging position refutes your claims. This does
not imply that you ever claimed that Kerry changed his position,
No, you do not imply I claimed such a thing, you stated it clearly
afew posts back:
"Kerry NEVER supported gay marriage, not even when he
was voting against DOMA. If you were imagining an
inconsistency back then, I'd love you to pull up some quotes
(and message IDs) from the articles you posted BACK THEN."
Great. So you really are an idiot. It's not just an act.
Wow, insults. You come up with that all by yourself?
The "inconsistency" back then would have been an anti gay
marriage politician voting against DOMA.
I never said anything about such an inconsistency, and your text
(including the capitalized "NEVER") only makes sense if you intended
to mean that I said Kerry's position on gay marriage changed. If
you did not intend this, you wrote it very poorly. Given your
apparent general lack of regard for the truth, I'm not inclined to
believe the latter.
That is, as you
appear to be having difficulty imagining someone being personally
against something on religious grounds, even as he's also against
the idea of the federal government imposing restrictions on the
people & states.
Why yes, I can imagine such a position.
Again, if you did not mean it to say that, you need to re-evaluate
how you write.
I didn't write you.
Parse error.
You never quoted me saying anything like it.
Yes, yes, that's nice. I hear the moon landing was faked.
You're insane.
Insults are neat.
The person I was responding to *was* implying that Kerry
opposed gay marriage because of "election realities" (and
that this was unfortunate).
I'm certain that's why he feels it necessary to articulate his position.
Yet, his position is unchanged.
Again, I have never said it changed. The poster I was replying to did.
The fact that it is unchanged has nothing to do with my view.
How? How is Kerry's opposition to gay marriage (which is my
"view") inconsistent with the fact that Kerry never changed his
position on gay marriage?
Kerry has always opposed federal restrictions.
That does not address my question.
Given Kerry's unchanged views and his voting record, a better (though
still quite lame) argument could be made that Kerry SUPPORTED
gay rights for political gain. Not that he was against gay rights for
political gain, but for them.
This doesn't show how I am inconsistent with the facts (and thus
refuting my "claims").
You implied that there was no difference between the Democrats and
the Republicans,
I implied no such thing. In fact, I stated several times in this thread
that Kerry's position on gay issues was better. In fact, I stated it
in my very first post to this thread, to which you responded. Amazingly,
you did not snip that part, so you must have read it. You are simply
lying now.
when in reality Bush & Kerry are polar opposites
on this issue.
Kerry's position is consistent, unchanged.
I never said anything about it being "inconsistent" or changing. You
seem to enjoy thinking his unchanging opposition to gay marriage affects
my position in some way. I don't pretend to understand why.
Bush, on the other hand, [snip]
Bush's waffling position has no effect on my view of Kerry. I am
able to separate my opinions of Bush from my opinions of Kerry.
The fact you keep throwing in these things unrelated to what I said
speaks volumes.
Kerry's anti-gay marriage position has never unchanged, but he
voted against DOMA.
I am saying that Kerry opposes gay marriage. He does. The
"FACTS" support that fully. I am not saying he did not vote
against DOMA.
You implied that there was no difference bewteen the Democrats and
the Republicans, when clearly there is a huge difference.
Again, you are simply lying here. I stated there was a difference and
Kerry was better. I do disagree with you on how much of a difference
it would make in reality, but you can't seem to comprehend, or simply
choose not to acknowledge, that there's a difference between these two
things.
Here in reality, the facts actually support Kerry's stated position.
That is to say, he is personally against gay marriage, but he's
also against the federal government imposing such a view on the
people and the states.
That's a nice opinion. Kerry opposes gay marriage, for what you
say must be religious reasons. You use whatever means you must
to stomach that.
Again, I'm sticking with the facts here. Kerry had every opportunity
to vote for DOMA and against ENDA in the Senate, and he did not.
The facts -- not my stomach -- dictate my views.
You, on the other hand, and appear to base your position on the
belief that you may read minds.
I base my opinions on his stated position, thanks.
Bush never opposed gay marriage. Certainly not in 2000. He
said he supported a states "Right" to recognize gay marriages.
Cite? I don't doubt it, I just don't know when/where he said it.
| Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would
| suggest to that state not to approve it.
|
|A: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in
| this state's issue.
| Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights
Thank you.
Given the lies, insults and red herrings, I take it we are done here?
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 09:46:07 PM |
|
|
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Is there any reason why anyone in a free society should settle for "separate
but equal"? Our history shows us exceptionally well how poorly that works.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
04 Jul 2004 10:55:08 AM |
|
|
Lord Calvert wrote:
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Is there any reason why anyone in a free society should settle for "separate
but equal"? Our history shows us exceptionally well how poorly that works.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
Legal question: if Newdow didn't have standing in a case involving
his own biological daughter, how did this group get standing?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:16:47 PM |
|
|
jojo <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote in message news:<aMHEc.16362$Ss4.15039@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:17:32 -0400 in episode
<HvidnV55kI9fxH_dRVn-gw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed out a specious
suit based on a fantasy claim.
But I do like the part where the god squad seems to think the
constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government means a
Republican form of government...
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want. Unfortunately, he's going
to get my vote. Seeing how he voted for the Iraq war and the patriot
act, it's very unfortunate.
Yeah ... I voted for Randall Forrester in the last Senate race, just
to let him know my displeasure. Benefits of being a constituent!
I hope he runs with Edwards. I kind of like that guy.
(I still wish McCain had won in 2000. IMO he was the best candidate. I
had to hold my nose to vote for Gore & Lieberman.)
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:11:42 AM |
|
|
jojo <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:17:32 -0400 in episode
<HvidnV55kI9fxH_dRVn-gw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed out a specious
suit based on a fantasy claim.
But I do like the part where the god squad seems to think the
constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government means a
Republican form of government...
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Provided "civil unions" grant gays the same legal rights that
"married" couples do, I wouldn't see that it matters to quibble.
If "civil unions" means that gays enjoy the same tax allevements
married couples do, can sign for medical, travel, insurance et al.
I don't see as calling it "civil union" or "marriage" matters.
Unfortunately, he's going
to get my vote. Seeing how he voted for the Iraq war and the patriot
act, it's very unfortunate.
I know. I'll hold my nose and vote Democrat this year also. But
hell, it has to be done.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
| User: "jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 04:26:57 PM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
jojo <joejoe@an-address.org> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:17:32 -0400 in episode
<HvidnV55kI9fxH_dRVn-gw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
The federal court DID NOT uphold gay marriage. They tossed out a
specious suit based on a fantasy claim.
But I do like the part where the god squad seems to think the
constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government means a
Republican form of government...
Well, let's not be too partisan about it. The last poll I saw shows
well over half the US population opposes gay marriage, so all cannot
be big-R Republicans. Hell, *Kerry* opposes gay marriage. He weasels
around the issue, but he opposes it. He's a "civil union" guy, which
is better, granted, but hardly what I want.
Provided "civil unions" grant gays the same legal rights that
"married" couples do, I wouldn't see that it matters to quibble.
If "civil unions" means that gays enjoy the same tax allevements
married couples do, can sign for medical, travel, insurance et al.
I don't see as calling it "civil union" or "marriage" matters.
As of now, civil unions don't grant many (any?) of the gov. benefits
as marriages. Maybe Kerry's got a plan for rectifting that, but he's
not made such a plan public if he does.
--
Jojo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 08:06:46 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected
by JENNIFER PETER
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4258800,00.html
BOSTON (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an attempt by
conservative groups and state lawmakers to stop gay marriage in
Massachusetts.
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs had argued that Massachusetts' high court usurped the
power of the Legislature - and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution
- when it ruled last year that gay couples are entitled to wed.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed Tuesday, and said the
appropriate way to contest the state court ruling is by amending the
Massachusetts Constitution - a long process already under way.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president
of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
The federal appeals court had rejected an earlier request by the
groups to stop the first marriage licenses from being issued to gay
couples in May.
Tuesday's ruling was the latest in a series of defeats for
conservative groups in both state and federal courts.
The appeals court said the November 2003 gay-marriage ruling by
Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court did not violate a clause in the
U.S. Constitution that calls for a republican form of government in
each state.
The only way a state could run afoul of the clause would be to
establish a monarchy or take other action that clearly deviated from
the republican form of government, the appeals court said.
How sad [insert chortle here]
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:11:40 AM |
|
|
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4258800,00.html
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president
of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
Catholics have no qualms against raping kids but allow fags who love
each other to get married? Never!
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
30 Jun 2004 09:22:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:11:45 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-}
But it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:20:00 PM |
|
|
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
(Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-}
But it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Conservative, homophobic Catholics are the only major group of
religious nutters we have in Massachusetts. Without them, only raggety
true-believer Marxists could hold that label. Please, think of the
children.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
02 Jul 2004 12:26:30 AM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-}
But it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Conservative, homophobic Catholics are the only major group of
religious nutters we have in Massachusetts.
Mass has a large Amish contingient, doesn't it?
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
02 Jul 2004 02:50:37 PM |
|
|
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e9slela14mq30@corp.supernews.com>...
berli@lycos.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
(Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-}
But it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Conservative, homophobic Catholics are the only major group of
religious nutters we have in Massachusetts.
Mass has a large Amish contingient, doesn't it?
I think "large" is a relative matter. Mass. is terrible farmland. I
have seen Amish in Boston from time to time. I'm never quite sure what
to think. One time about two dozen Mennonites were singing old-time
hymns on Boston Common and I thought that was pretty cool, but then
the preacher hauled out his AMP and started blasting ***** about how
you had to repent and get right with God. So--wait--God doesn't want
us using "fancy" things like washing machines, BUT AMPS ARE A-OK?
On that note, has anyone noticed the correlation between beards,
religious extremism, and sexism? Significant, or coincidence?
-Hy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
03 Jul 2004 09:11:46 AM |
|
|
On that note, has anyone noticed the correlation between beards,
religious extremism, and sexism? Significant, or coincidence?
Speaking as a bearded man, I think I resent that remark. :}
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
07 Jul 2004 03:49:24 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2004 12:50:37 -0700, (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in alt.atheism:
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e9slela14mq30@corp.supernews.com>...
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode>> >>><10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-}
But it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Conservative, homophobic Catholics are the only major group of
religious nutters we have in Massachusetts.
Mass has a large Amish contingient, doesn't it?
I think "large" is a relative matter. Mass. is terrible farmland. I
have seen Amish in Boston from time to time. I'm never quite sure what
to think. One time about two dozen Mennonites were singing old-time
hymns on Boston Common and I thought that was pretty cool, but then
the preacher hauled out his AMP and started blasting ***** about how
you had to repent and get right with God. So--wait--God doesn't want
us using "fancy" things like washing machines, BUT AMPS ARE A-OK?
On that note, has anyone noticed the correlation between beards,
religious extremism, and sexism? Significant, or coincidence?
-Hy
Sheesh! Isn't that just like a woman.
(Apostate wears a full-face beard.)
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:50:14 PM |
|
|
Conservative, homophobic Catholics are the only major group of
religious nutters we have in Massachusetts.
Well, there is your governor...a conservative homophobic Mormon religious
nutter.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 09:40:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:11:45 +0000 in episode
<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-} But
it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Ah, coming from the moral high ground of a sexual abuse scandal...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
01 Jul 2004 02:24:52 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.01.14.40.23.956292@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:11:45 +0000 in episode
<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-} But
it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Ah, coming from the moral high ground of a sexual abuse scandal...
Precisely. Our new bishop ("He isn't Bernie!") has made opposing gay
marriage Issue #1. (I assume the old Issue #1, abortion, has dropped
to the #2 slot.) The Catholic Church could try to build good will
again by working for the poor in Massachusetts, helping to reform
urban schools, alerting parishioners to human rights abuses around the
world and providing aid efforts (one of the few good things Bernard
Cardinal Law did do), but instead they just make a laughingstock of
themselves by attacking gays when they themselves have proven to be a
haven for child molesters and other sexual predators.
This is one reason why I am no longer a Catholic. Being an atheist
wasn't reason enough to break with the Church--being a Humanist was.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages Rejected |
02 Jul 2004 12:26:29 AM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.01.14.40.23.956292@lid_email.no>...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:11:45 +0000 in episode
<10e7edkg1bhke53@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:59:31 +0000 in episode
<10e4ls4e2gitg95@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero
REMOVEFRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice):
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it
would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because they, being conservatives, believe in the right of states to
control their own laws concerning the since the beginning considered a
state matter of marriage?
The irony makes one want to add them to their short list, huh? }:-} But
it's worse: It's a Catholic cult that launched the legal procedings.
Ah, coming from the moral high ground of a sexual abuse scandal...
Precisely. Our new bishop ("He isn't Bernie!") has made opposing gay
marriage Issue #1. (I assume the old Issue #1, abortion, has dropped
to the #2 slot.)
And of course pedophile boy-raping priests is made number 30,666. And
the epidemic problem of moving pedophiles around from church to church
thus making the Church a dating service for pedophiles gets move to
issue #30,667.
---
Where to find Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.f911tix.com/
For activists: Not Ordered Text Server at http://www.notserver.com/
Baby Killer Bush: most unwelcome American ever to set foot on Irish soil:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime/primetime56_1c.smil
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
