| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 07:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:33:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:50:55 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:40:02 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Actually very relevant. The courts have held over and over that
"separate but equal" is not Constitutional, since they are inherently
unequal.
Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about anybody being separate
but equal.
You are the one who brought up "civil unions", not me. That's a
separate form of marriage.
<LOL> No it's not.. It would simply define a *legal* relationship
between two people.
So, you support the laws that existed prior to Loving v Virginia?
After all, a black man had just the same right to marry someone of his
own race as a white man did...
Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about race.
No, but we are talking about marriage laws. Do you support the
freedom of adults to marry, or not?
sure, as long as the marriage follows the rules...
I see you bring up the two big strawmen of the anti-gay marriage
crowd.. animals and children. Let me quickly and easily demolish that
pathetic little argument for you.
First of all, the animal side of things. Marriage in all fifty states
requires that both participants be consenting adults. Part of that
consent is *signing the marriage license*, or if the person getting
married is illiterate or unable to physically sign, making his or her
intent clear before an officer of the court, how can then attest to
the intention of the person.
It simply demonstrates that society gets to set the rules.
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry and
there certainly is no "right" that forces society to accept your
relationship as normal. If you have rights regarding the legal
ramifications of a committed homosexual relationship, they can be
adequately satisfied by a civil union.
process of law. That means that a blanket prohbition on an entire
class of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic
background, etc, is illegal.
This, of course, leaves poodles and any other animals right out.
Animals cannot give informed consent, cannot sign their names or
speak.
So much for that argument.
In your opinion, which doesn't really matter.
LOL! Can't refute a damn thing I've said, can you?
What you've "said" are merely your opinions. Your opinions don't
require a rebuttal.. You do have a right to express your opinions
and I see no reason why I should try to change them... OTOH, I
expressed my opinions that disagree with yours and since my opinions
seem to be the prevailing opinions of the majority and seem to be the
way the laws are structured, it behooves you to try to change my
opinions and not the other way around.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 04:35:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:43:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:33:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
You are the one who brought up "civil unions", not me. That's a
separate form of marriage.
<LOL> No it's not.. It would simply define a *legal* relationship
between two people.
Which we already have. It's called marriage. You do understand that
the term covers non-religious unions, right?
No, but we are talking about marriage laws. Do you support the
freedom of adults to marry, or not?
sure, as long as the marriage follows the rules...
So, had we been discussing this in Virginia in 1966, you would have
supported the miscegenation laws that prevented blacks from marrying
whites? After all, those were the rules.
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
and
there certainly is no "right" that forces society to accept your
relationship as normal. If you have rights regarding the legal
ramifications of a committed homosexual relationship, they can be
adequately satisfied by a civil union.
Boy, you haven't read the First Amendment either! As long as I don't
violate anyone else's rights, I can expect society to accept however I
want to live. They don't have to like it, but freedom means freedom
for all, or the term is meaningless.
LOL! Can't refute a damn thing I've said, can you?
What you've "said" are merely your opinions. Your opinions don't
require a rebuttal.. You do have a right to express your opinions
and I see no reason why I should try to change them... OTOH, I
expressed my opinions that disagree with yours and since my opinions
seem to be the prevailing opinions of the majority and seem to be the
way the laws are structured, it behooves you to try to change my
opinions and not the other way around.
Actually I can cite court cases, the US Constitution, and US Code to
support my views.
The majority in the South once held that blacks were subhumans. Did
that make it right? The majority once thought that Jews caused the
Black Death.. we're they right?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 04:48:53 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:43:50 -0400, nevermore
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
In spite of Loving, it is not settled law whether the right to marry a
person of the same sex is a fundamental right, nor whether denying
marriage on the basis of gender classifications embodied in current
statutes violates Equal Protection.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 05:12:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:35:09 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:43:50 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:33:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
You are the one who brought up "civil unions", not me. That's a
separate form of marriage.
<LOL> No it's not.. It would simply define a *legal* relationship
between two people.
Which we already have. It's called marriage. You do understand that
the term covers non-religious unions, right?
well, yeah, but you see the majority of people want the rules of
marriage to include the stipulation that the two people be of the
opposite sex.
No, but we are talking about marriage laws. Do you support the
freedom of adults to marry, or not?
sure, as long as the marriage follows the rules...
So, had we been discussing this in Virginia in 1966, you would have
supported the miscegenation laws that prevented blacks from marrying
whites? After all, those were the rules.
Probably not since I was involved in an inter-racial relationship at
the time.
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
and
there certainly is no "right" that forces society to accept your
relationship as normal. If you have rights regarding the legal
ramifications of a committed homosexual relationship, they can be
adequately satisfied by a civil union.
Boy, you haven't read the First Amendment either! As long as I don't
violate anyone else's rights, I can expect society to accept however I
want to live. They don't have to like it, but freedom means freedom
for all, or the term is meaningless.
<LOL> and you claim that I haven't read th First Amendment...
There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment that says or
implies what you wrote above....
LOL! Can't refute a damn thing I've said, can you?
What you've "said" are merely your opinions. Your opinions don't
require a rebuttal.. You do have a right to express your opinions
and I see no reason why I should try to change them... OTOH, I
expressed my opinions that disagree with yours and since my opinions
seem to be the prevailing opinions of the majority and seem to be the
way the laws are structured, it behooves you to try to change my
opinions and not the other way around.
Actually I can cite court cases, the US Constitution, and US Code to
support my views.
You can make noises that support your opinions, but it's still just
noic=se...
The majority in the South once held that blacks were subhumans. Did
that make it right? The majority once thought that Jews caused the
Black Death.. we're they right?
That's a fallacious argument..
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 08:09:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:12:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
You need to do a little bit of research, nevermore. When SCOTUS
overturned Virginia (and MANY states') Law about interracial marriage,
they ruled Against the majority feeling by the people. People were
OUTRAGED by it. (Upwards of 85% of Virginians approved of the law
banning interracial marriages)
If we were to look to YOU for history, we'd all be thinking that the
majority of Virginians nodded their heads in agreement with SCOTUS and
commented that it was high time blacks were able to marry their
daughters.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "1896 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 08:44:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:09:17 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:12:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
You need to do a little bit of research, nevermore. When SCOTUS
overturned Virginia (and MANY states') Law about interracial marriage,
they ruled Against the majority feeling by the people. People were
OUTRAGED by it. (Upwards of 85% of Virginians approved of the law
banning interracial marriages)
If we were to look to YOU for history, we'd all be thinking that the
majority of Virginians nodded their heads in agreement with SCOTUS and
commented that it was high time blacks were able to marry their
daughters.
Here's the funny part: this guy, in other threads, has claimed to be
in an interracial marriage himself. Even if he's lying, you would
have thought he would have researched the topic a little bit before
spouting off.
James, Seattle
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:07:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:44:43 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:09:17 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:12:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
You need to do a little bit of research, nevermore. When SCOTUS
overturned Virginia (and MANY states') Law about interracial marriage,
they ruled Against the majority feeling by the people. People were
OUTRAGED by it. (Upwards of 85% of Virginians approved of the law
banning interracial marriages)
If we were to look to YOU for history, we'd all be thinking that the
majority of Virginians nodded their heads in agreement with SCOTUS and
commented that it was high time blacks were able to marry their
daughters.
Here's the funny part: this guy, in other threads, has claimed to be
in an interracial marriage himself.
Not claimed to be in an interracial marriage, but claimed to have been
in one... ..and back about that time, too...
Even if he's lying, you would
have thought he would have researched the topic a little bit before
spouting off.
The really funny thing here is that Fattass Greywolf Jamieson is too
big of a chicken ***** to address me directly... <LOL> He's too
afraid that he's going to have to address his Greywolf posts....
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:07:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:09:17 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:12:59 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Yes, and thoise rules state that you cannot deny a right without due
<LOL> *****.... first of all, there is no "right" to marry
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
You need to do a little bit of research, nevermore. When SCOTUS
overturned Virginia (and MANY states') Law about interracial marriage,
they ruled Against the majority feeling by the people. People were
OUTRAGED by it. (Upwards of 85% of Virginians approved of the law
banning interracial marriages)
No, I'm sorry, that's simply not the case... There might have been
places in the country at that time where 85% were against interracial
marriages, but not Virginia.
If we were to look to YOU for history, we'd all be thinking that the
majority of Virginians nodded their heads in agreement with SCOTUS and
commented that it was high time blacks were able to marry their
daughters.
James, Seattle
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
14 Sep 2005 09:01:10 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posting the following on Wed, 14 Sep 2005
18:12:59 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:35:09 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Which we already have. It's called marriage. You do understand that
the term covers non-religious unions, right?
well, yeah, but you see the majority of people want the rules of
marriage to include the stipulation that the two people be of the
opposite sex.
Does that maike it right? When the vast majority of residents with
the vote in the South wanted to keep slavery legal, does that make it
right?
We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. The l4th Amendment makes it
clear that no rights can be denied without due process of law.
So, had we been discussing this in Virginia in 1966, you would have
supported the miscegenation laws that prevented blacks from marrying
whites? After all, those were the rules.
Probably not since I was involved in an inter-racial relationship at
the time.
So, you agree that the rules, even though they might be supported by
the vast majority, can be wrong, yes?
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Boy, you haven't read the First Amendment either! As long as I don't
violate anyone else's rights, I can expect society to accept however I
want to live. They don't have to like it, but freedom means freedom
for all, or the term is meaningless.
<LOL> and you claim that I haven't read th First Amendment...
There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment that says or
implies what you wrote above....
Freedom of expression.
Actually I can cite court cases, the US Constitution, and US Code to
support my views.
You can make noises that support your opinions, but it's still just
noic=se...
Really? Is that what you call two hundred years of court cases? News
flash: the law is based on two things; the actual written law and
previous court cases on the topic.
:
The majority in the South once held that blacks were subhumans. Did
that make it right? The majority once thought that Jews caused the
Black Death.. we're they right?
That's a fallacious argument..
Which you can't answer. Your entire argument seems to be "majority
rules." Well, the majority in Germany saw Jews as an evil that needed
to be exterminated. Did the majority opinion make that view a fact?
--
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: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 06:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posting the following on Wed, 14 Sep 2005
18:12:59 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:35:09 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Which we already have. It's called marriage. You do understand that
the term covers non-religious unions, right?
well, yeah, but you see the majority of people want the rules of
marriage to include the stipulation that the two people be of the
opposite sex.
Does that maike it right?
In this case, yes. You can't ask people to sanction something that
they do not approve of.
When the vast majority of residents with
the vote in the South wanted to keep slavery legal, does that make it
right?
Irrelevant...
We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. The l4th Amendment makes it
clear that no rights can be denied without due process of law.
Again, there is no right to marriage, and of course the law is clear
on this issue anyway.
So, had we been discussing this in Virginia in 1966, you would have
supported the miscegenation laws that prevented blacks from marrying
whites? After all, those were the rules.
Probably not since I was involved in an inter-racial relationship at
the time.
So, you agree that the rules, even though they might be supported by
the vast majority, can be wrong, yes?
No. In my case, there was no such rule.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. From
Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."
Marriage is a basic civil right.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
Amendment IX
<LOL> Not hardly... To say that there might be other rights does
not make just anything a right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
Boy, you haven't read the First Amendment either! As long as I don't
violate anyone else's rights, I can expect society to accept however I
want to live. They don't have to like it, but freedom means freedom
for all, or the term is meaningless.
<LOL> and you claim that I haven't read th First Amendment...
There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment that says or
implies what you wrote above....
Freedom of expression.
<LOL> Well, first of all the word "expression" does not appear in
the First Amendment.....
Actually I can cite court cases, the US Constitution, and US Code to
support my views.
You can make noises that support your opinions, but it's still just
noic=se...
Really? Is that what you call two hundred years of court cases? News
flash: the law is based on two things; the actual written law and
previous court cases on the topic.
:
The majority in the South once held that blacks were subhumans. Did
that make it right? The majority once thought that Jews caused the
Black Death.. we're they right?
That's a fallacious argument..
Which you can't answer. Your entire argument seems to be "majority
rules."
Yep, in this case it does. You have a very good case for establishing
a civil union law which would give you all the legal rights that
married people have, but you do not have a case for forcing the
society to sanction gay marriage.
Well, the majority in Germany saw Jews as an evil that needed
to be exterminated. Did the majority opinion make that view a fact?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 07:33:59 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posting the following on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
19:08:01 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
well, yeah, but you see the majority of people want the rules of
marriage to include the stipulation that the two people be of the
opposite sex.
Does that maike it right?
In this case, yes. You can't ask people to sanction something that
they do not approve of.
Certainly I can! The law exists to protect the minority, not the
conforming majority.
When the vast majority of residents with
the vote in the South wanted to keep slavery legal, does that make it
right?
Irrelevant...
No, very relevant, but you don't want to admit that.
We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. The l4th Amendment makes it
clear that no rights can be denied without due process of law.
Again, there is no right to marriage, and of course the law is clear
on this issue anyway.
According to the Supreme Court, there is.
Probably not since I was involved in an inter-racial relationship at
the time.
So, you agree that the rules, even though they might be supported by
the vast majority, can be wrong, yes?
No. In my case, there was no such rule.
Are you actually claiming there were no laws against interracial
marriage before 1967?
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
Amendment IX
<LOL> Not hardly... To say that there might be other rights does
not make just anything a right.
And Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the people
who define those rights. They have stated, on several occassions,
that marriage is a right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
No, it was about marriage. It did not address anything but marriage.
The criminal conviction was based on the marriage of the Lovings.
Cases that have come after Loving about marriage have refered to it.
Freedom of expression.
<LOL> Well, first of all the word "expression" does not appear in
the First Amendment.....
Speech then. Freedom of assembly.
Which you can't answer. Your entire argument seems to be "majority
rules."
Yep, in this case it does. You have a very good case for establishing
a civil union law which would give you all the legal rights that
married people have, but you do not have a case for forcing the
society to sanction gay marriage.
So, you *do* think that oppressing blacks was OK because the majority
supported it?
We have every argument we need.
Well, the majority in Germany saw Jews as an evil that needed
to be exterminated. Did the majority opinion make that view a fact?
No answer, I see.
--
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: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 09:09:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:33:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posting the following on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
19:08:01 -0400 iin alt.atheism?
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
well, yeah, but you see the majority of people want the rules of
marriage to include the stipulation that the two people be of the
opposite sex.
Does that maike it right?
In this case, yes. You can't ask people to sanction something that
they do not approve of.
Certainly I can! The law exists to protect the minority, not the
conforming majority.
Well yeah, you can always ask... My statement to the contrary was
rhetorical... the issue of the legal implications can and should be
satisfied, yet the people need not sanction gay marriage.
When the vast majority of residents with
the vote in the South wanted to keep slavery legal, does that make it
right?
Irrelevant...
No, very relevant, but you don't want to admit that.
Well, you have that opinion...
We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. The l4th Amendment makes it
clear that no rights can be denied without due process of law.
Again, there is no right to marriage, and of course the law is clear
on this issue anyway.
According to the Supreme Court, there is.
OK< so let's say that there's a right to marry... Show where marriage
is defined as anything other than a union of a man and a woman.
Probably not since I was involved in an inter-racial relationship at
the time.
So, you agree that the rules, even though they might be supported by
the vast majority, can be wrong, yes?
No. In my case, there was no such rule.
Are you actually claiming there were no laws against interracial
marriage before 1967?
The laws outlawed white people from marrying black people. I'm about
half Indian. Also, there was no such laws where I was married.
There's nothing to support that decision in the Constitution... The
case here is simply that the majority of people finally came around to
believe that inter-racial marriage was acceptable...
Amendment IX
<LOL> Not hardly... To say that there might be other rights does
not make just anything a right.
And Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the people
who define those rights. They have stated, on several occassions,
that marriage is a right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
No, it was about marriage. It did not address anything but marriage.
The criminal conviction was based on the marriage of the Lovings.
Cases that have come after Loving about marriage have refered to it.
Freedom of expression.
<LOL> Well, first of all the word "expression" does not appear in
the First Amendment.....
Speech then. Freedom of assembly.
Which you can't answer. Your entire argument seems to be "majority
rules."
<shrug> Talk and assemble all you want...
Yep, in this case it does. You have a very good case for establishing
a civil union law which would give you all the legal rights that
married people have, but you do not have a case for forcing the
society to sanction gay marriage.
So, you *do* think that oppressing blacks was OK because the majority
supported it?
We have every argument we need.
So why are you whining at me?
Well, the majority in Germany saw Jews as an evil that needed
to be exterminated. Did the majority opinion make that view a fact?
No answer, I see.
To your irrelevant questions? No.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 06:13:49 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 09:09:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Josh Rosenbluth
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
15 Sep 2005 09:13:30 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 05:54:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 11:47:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 12:03:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
...only in your pathetic little mind....
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:03:34 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
..only in your pathetic little mind....
No, in the law of a number of countries and in a number of states in
the US. This clear fact has been repeated many times now. You ignore
it.
Too bad that your argument depends on inane little insults. Facts
work much better.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:08:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:03:34 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
..only in your pathetic little mind....
No, in the law of a number of countries and in a number of states in
the US. This clear fact has been repeated many times now. You ignore
it.
A number of states?
Too bad that your argument depends on inane little insults. Facts
work much better.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:24 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:03:34 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
..only in your pathetic little mind....
No, in the law of a number of countries and in a number of states in
the US. This clear fact has been repeated many times now. You ignore
it.
A number of states?
Oh good, you now admit that same-sex marriage exists. I am glad we
are making progress.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 08:22:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:24 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:03:34 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
..only in your pathetic little mind....
No, in the law of a number of countries and in a number of states in
the US. This clear fact has been repeated many times now. You ignore
it.
A number of states?
Oh good, you now admit that same-sex marriage exists. I am glad we
are making progress.
Like I said somewhere else, slavery exists too... what's your point?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:54 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
snip
A number of states?
Oh good, you now admit that same-sex marriage exists. I am glad we
are making progress.
Like I said somewhere else, slavery exists too... what's your point?
You made it for me again. Thank you.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1899 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:32:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:38:53 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:08:24 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:03:34 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:47:31 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:54:05 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:30 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:13:49 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:01:10 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The SCOTUS in Loving, as well as several other decisions, has made
marriage a fundamental right.
Sorry, no, that case was about race issues.
It was decided on both Equal Protection (race) and Due Process (right to
marry). Also, see Zablocki v. Redhail.
Well, yes, but the issue was race... Equal protection for all races,
you see...
Only the Equal Protection part of Loving was about race. Not the Due
Process part. Zablocki had nothing to do with race.
Josh Rosenbluth
So let's say that you do have a "right to marry." You still have
quite a problem getting the definition of marriage to include same
sex.
Apparently not, since same-sex marriage exists.
..only in your pathetic little mind....
No, in the law of a number of countries and in a number of states in
the US. This clear fact has been repeated many times now. You ignore
it.
A number of states?
Oh good, you now admit that same-sex marriage exists. I am glad we
are making progress.
He's yanking your chain. Here's what he said about same-sex marriage
about 18 months ago: " I couldn't care less if someone wanted to
marry their tennis racket and I think that anybody that does needs to
get their own life."
As I said, he's just trying to provoke you for his own amusment.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
