Religions > Atheism > Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2007 07:19:30 PM |
| Object: |
Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
Homosexual Civil Unions
LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/12/07 | Gudrun Schultz
Posted on 03/12/2007 5:22:07 PM PDT by wagglebee
VATICAN CITY, March 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Legislation
permitting de facto and same-sex unions would be so damaging to family
life and society that Catholics will do "everything possible" to
ensure the laws do not pass, the head of the Pontifical Academy for
Life said last week.
"Catholics will do everything to shed light on the debate, and will do
everything possible so that these proposals will not pass," said
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, during a press conference at Vatican Radio.
"Everything based on untruths is destined to damage someone, if not
many people."
Zenit News Agency reported March 7 on Bishop Sgreccia comments at the
Rome launch of a book on the issue by Carlo Casini, a European
Parliamentary member representing Italy. Casini's book was titled
"Unioni di fatto, matrimonio, figli: tra ideologia e realt=E0" (De Facto
Unions, Marriage, Children: Between Ideology and Facts), published in
Italian by Societ=E0 Editrice Fiorentina.
Bishop Sgreccia said the Church's objections to de facto unions simply
upheld laws established by international and national legislation,
recognizing the family as the foundation of human society. The bishop
referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
"If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said.
Homosexual unions would go "against a law of nature," he said, since
"in the corporality of man and woman there is written natural and
structural complementarity pertaining to emotional life, sexual life
and the procreation of children."
"Natural law expresses the good sense" of that union between a man and
a woman, Bishop Sgreccia said.
Further, the family is essential for economic health and social
progress.
"If we wish to see an economy that has as its main unit family health,
then we must take into account that the de facto families,
constitutionally precarious, are the source, as well as divorce and
separations, of social and economic instability."
Far from encouraging the establishment of de facto unions, "the state
would do well in helping youth by teaching them the formation of a
true family, with a civic or religious marriage, but stable, and with
an eased access to house and work."
"This is where the money should be spent," said the bishop, "and not
creating marital precariousness."
Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
not give stability or serenity."
At the same time, legalizing homosexual unions does not address the
real needs of people dealing with same-sex attraction, the bishop
said.
"[G]ay pride certainly does not help them in overcoming their
suffering, which instead must be faced with human understanding, with
medical and psychological sciences, and with promotional attitudes of
all the good qualities that exist in these persons."
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Vatican Bishop: Humanity Heading for "Self-Genocide"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012607.html
Bishop Sgreccia Named President of Pontifical Academy For Life
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05010308.html
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 10:45:12 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87zm647a0e.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
That was not the important issue the case decided.
You hate the 'E' in E pluribus Unum, huh?
Non sequitur (and silly besides).
It was instead really about judicial review, as the article I quoted
explicitly
stated.
But, if you knew why those non-roevwade courts ruled as they did maybe you
would show me that you understand the constitution and its proper
application.
Good grief! I just posted a long explanation of the Supreme Court
ruling in question (one that redated Row versus Wade by nearly 200 years!
You were talking about the ability of the Supreme Court to declare
state laws unconstitutional.
What ability? There is no way for the USSC to declare state laws
unconstitutional without a constitutional provision that clearly
reserves such power to the federal government.
What is it about "judicial review" that you do not understand?
A comeback like that shows me you are for criminals.
A reply like yours shows you are a complete and utter idiot.
<rest of this nut's rant snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 01:07:23 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 10:35 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87odmkiq20.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87k5x81zdp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87fy7xiaj4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with
every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before
it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it
violates the Constitution. Check the Separation of powers
requirement that was violated by the USSC in 1973 in roevwade.
"Separation of powers" does not mean "Wentzky agrees with the
decision."
It means the USSC had no authority to override Texas' or any other
State's
non-roevwade position.
"Separation of powers" means no such thing.
RoeVWade-speak?
No, "Marbury v. Madison" speak.
Are you always so easily detected when you participate in suberfuge.
As "The Chief Instigator" pointed
out, the issue was settled 200 or so years ago.
It wasn't settled by a roevwade court.
And, roevwade isn't settled.-
It's as settled as any Supreme Court decision. Why do you hate the
U.S. legal system?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 01:11:23 AM |
|
|
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174630043.557185.107810@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 22, 10:35 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87odmkiq20.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87k5x81zdp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87fy7xiaj4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with
every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought
before
it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it
violates the Constitution. Check the Separation of powers
requirement that was violated by the USSC in 1973 in roevwade.
"Separation of powers" does not mean "Wentzky agrees with the
decision."
It means the USSC had no authority to override Texas' or any other
State's
non-roevwade position.
"Separation of powers" means no such thing.
RoeVWade-speak?
No, "Marbury v. Madison" speak.
Are you always so easily detected when you participate in suberfuge.
As "The Chief Instigator" pointed
out, the issue was settled 200 or so years ago.
It wasn't settled by a roevwade court.
And, roevwade isn't settled.-
It's as settled as any Supreme Court decision.
*****.
Why do you hate the
U.S. legal system?
The legal system or the criminal fraud ring element in it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
22 Mar 2007 09:44:41 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87fy7xiaj4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it
violates the Constitution. Check the Separation of powers
requirement that was violated by the USSC in 1973 in roevwade.
"Separation of powers" does not mean "Wentzky agrees with the
decision."
It means the USSC had no authority to override Texas' or any other State's
non-roevwade position.
You're going on 200 years too late for that argument - which was settled by
Marbury v. Madison.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Manitoba 0 (March 21)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 23 vs. Rochester, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
22 Mar 2007 11:59:59 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates the
Constitution.
And laws against abortion violated the constitution.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
22 Mar 2007 08:51:37 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4602b60f$0$14085$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the
Constitution.
And laws against abortion violated the constitution.
No they didn't.
They violated man's right to kill.
LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 12:14:15 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4602b60f$0$14085$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the
Constitution.
And laws against abortion violated the constitution.
No they didn't.
Yes, moron, they did. Your idiotic whining doesn't change that fact.
They violated man's right to kill.
There is no right to kill, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 12:46:26 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46036227$0$14089$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4602b60f$0$14085$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have
the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the
Constitution.
And laws against abortion violated the constitution.
No they didn't.
Yes, moron, they did.
You thought they did, but you can't show any to prove your opinion.
Your idiotic whining doesn't change that fact.
Your illicit opinion doesn't cure the disease.
They violated man's right to kill.
There is no right to kill, idiot.
There most certainly is a right to kill, and it is legal.
I guess you think we are supposed to allow any enemy within our borders to
attack people in the USA and survive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 01:55:33 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46036227$0$14089$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4602b60f$0$14085$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have
the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the
Constitution.
And laws against abortion violated the constitution.
No they didn't.
Yes, moron, they did.
You thought they did,
No, idiot, I know they did.
Your idiotic whining doesn't change that fact.
Your illicit opinion
Is just you whining at the truth.
They violated man's right to kill.
There is no right to kill, idiot.
There most certainly is a right to kill,
Stop lying, *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 01:12:27 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates the
Constitution.
They decided, after due process, that the law violated the
Constitution. That's their job. Who should we let make the decision -
you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 01:38:05 AM |
|
|
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174630347.224105.71230@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the
Constitution.
They decided, after due process,
....... in Texas.
that the law violated the
Constitution.
Wrong. Texas destroyed this *****.
That's their job. Who should we let make the decision -
you?
The USSC of 1973 erred.
They did not perform due diligence and they neglected the Constitution.
They criminally violated the right of States to govern themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
23 Mar 2007 10:46:39 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174630347.224105.71230@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1174542611.921031.259270@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46015751$0$14102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in message
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Rules which you pull out of your *****.
The rules stated in the Constitution say that the courts do have the
responsibility to decide whether laws are unconstitutional.
Which would give the USSC authority to strike down roevwade.
And your point would be? Nobody argued that they agreed with every
decision the court makes, only that the court has the right to
determine the constitutionality of laws in cases brought before it.
They can only determine something to be unconstitutional if it violates
the Constitution.
They decided, after due process,
...... in Texas.
Idiot. Texas *is* part of the USA, your delusions to the contrary
notwithstanding.
that the law violated the
Constitution.
Wrong. Texas destroyed this *****.
So get your IQ-60 ***** down here and do something about it.
That's their job. Who should we let make the decision -
you?
The USSC of 1973 erred.
....according to one certified psychotic in South Carolina, anyway.
They did not perform due diligence and they neglected the Constitution.
They criminally violated the right of States to govern themselves.
Never mind that little requirement that the states can't thumb their noses at
the Constitution...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Manitoba 0 (March 21)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 23 vs. Rochester, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 06:26:28 AM |
|
|
On 21 Mar., 08:10, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1174458762.67=
3921.268030@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1174448638.819863.325890@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> typed:
On Mar 20, 8:11 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:46008222$0$18887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> typed:
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Attila <<procho...@here.now> typed:
Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage laws? Plea=
se
be specific, with quotes.
Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to
themselves can not be usurped by the federal government.
Well, if no one else has jumped on this, I will:
So, Mr. Wentzky, what you seem to be saying is that in those states
-- yes, plural -- where the right to define marriage (or Civil
Union, or whatever) has been reserved by said states to cover
same-sex couples; You contend that the Feds can do nothing about i=
t?
If the States in question have done so legally via their own
Constitutionally required process, such would be true.
But, to my knowledge no state has done such to this date.
When a state supreme court declares that a restriction in law (such
as, in this case, the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples) =
is
unconstitutional under the state constitution, that *IS* "their own
Constitutionally required process."
Actuallu, it isn't their Constitutionally required process.
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Where have you been the last 200 years? How far outside the solar
system is your home planet?
Sir, you are simply and obviously making false statements. You are
either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.
Ideally, the courts would not strike down laws.
It is my opinion that Constitutionalist judges should be involved in the
law-making process to ensure that they will not need to strike it after t=
he
representative process has been completed.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn=
-
That may be your opinion, but the fact is that judicial review of
laws is an integral part of the US legal system. The US Supreme Court
has struck down laws as unconstitutional since the very beginning.
The fact that you do not like it does not make it illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 01:42:40 PM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 12:10 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1174458762.673921.268030@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1174448638.819863.325890@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> typed:
On Mar 20, 8:11 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:46008222$0$18887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> typed:
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Attila <<procho...@here.now> typed:
Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage laws? Please
be specific, with quotes.
Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to
themselves can not be usurped by the federal government.
Well, if no one else has jumped on this, I will:
So, Mr. Wentzky, what you seem to be saying is that in those states
-- yes, plural -- where the right to define marriage (or Civil
Union, or whatever) has been reserved by said states to cover
same-sex couples; You contend that the Feds can do nothing about it?
If the States in question have done so legally via their own
Constitutionally required process, such would be true.
But, to my knowledge no state has done such to this date.
When a state supreme court declares that a restriction in law (such
as, in this case, the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples) is
unconstitutional under the state constitution, that *IS* "their own
Constitutionally required process."
Actuallu, it isn't their Constitutionally required process.
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
You actually claim that?
Yes. At least in part.
There are rules to be adhered to.
Where have you been the last 200 years? How far outside the solar
system is your home planet?
Sir, you are simply and obviously making false statements. You are
either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.
Ideally, the courts would not strike down laws.
It is my opinion that Constitutionalist judges should be involved in the
law-making process to ensure that they will not need to strike it after the
representative process has been completed
That's an interesting opinion which happens to be at odds with the way
the U.S. legal system works. Perhaps there is some other country
you're thinking of, where the legal system works that way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 01:37:42 AM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" >
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
It's part of the checks and balances of our
governmental system.
Wrong.
That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.
Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.
What statute did they violate?
If "most everyone" knows they committed an illegal act, why haven't
they been arrested?
Why am I asking questions of someone who says that courts can't
declare laws unconstitutional, when it has been one of the bedrocks of
American law for centuries?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 02:15:34 AM |
|
|
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174459062.011671.295150@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" >
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
It's part of the checks and balances of our
governmental system.
Wrong.
That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.
Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.
What statute did they violate?
The Statute against treason.
And, the law-making procedure in the Constitution.
If "most everyone" knows they committed an illegal act, why haven't
they been arrested?
Who knows?
Why am I asking questions of someone who says that courts can't
declare laws unconstitutional, when it has been one of the bedrocks of
American law for centuries?
Where do you find that the Courts are qualified to declare laws
unconstitutional?
Why is it that you would rather the courts strike down the representative
framework of the USA and its States than for them to patiently await the
completion of the representative process?
Why do you think every criminal needs to rush things through court?
LOL!
Is it because they are afraid they are going to be punished?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 06:30:36 AM |
|
|
On 21 Mar., 08:15, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1174459062.011671.295150@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" >
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
It's part of the checks and balances of our
governmental system.
Wrong.
That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.
Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.
What statute did they violate?
The Statute against treason.
And, the law-making procedure in the Constitution.
If "most everyone" knows they committed an illegal act, why haven't
they been arrested?
Who knows?
Why am I asking questions of someone who says that courts can't
declare laws unconstitutional, when it has been one of the bedrocks of
American law for centuries?
Where do you find that the Courts are qualified to declare laws
unconstitutional?
If the courts do not have that power, why are their decisions accepted
by legislators, governors and presidents; and they have been accepted
since the first Supreme Court did it.
Why is it that you would rather the courts strike down the representative
framework of the USA and its States than for them to patiently await the
completion of the representative process?
What does the above mean?
Why do you think every criminal needs to rush things through court?
LOL!
Why do you think every criminal does that or tries to do that?
Is it because they are afraid they are going to be punished?-
Who knows, apparently it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 01:54:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 12:15 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1174459062.011671.295150@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" >
Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
Wrong.
It's part of the checks and balances of our
governmental system.
Wrong.
That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.
Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.
What statute did they violate?
The Statute against treason.
And, the law-making procedure in the Constitution.
For a court to declare a law unconstitutional is not treason. It's
part of their job description. They determine whether the law in
question is in conflict with another law - the Constitution - which
has higher priority.
Why am I asking questions of someone who says that courts can't
declare laws unconstitutional, when it has been one of the bedrocks of
American law for centuries?
Where do you find that the Courts are qualified to declare laws
unconstitutional?
Qualified, or legally permitted? Are you still claiming that it is
illegal for a court to declare a law unconstitutional? If so, you will
have to argue with every lawyer, judge, every constitutional scholar,
and just about every elected federal official. What you're describing
as not permitted has been the established and accepted law of the land
for centuries. It's one thing to DISAGREE with a court ruling. It's
quite another to insist that the court did not have the right to
evaluate the constitutionality of the law. They have the right AND THE
OBLIGATION.
Why is it that you would rather the courts strike down the representative
framework of the USA and its States than for them to patiently await the
completion of the representative process?
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If a lesser law is
in violation of it, the lesser law is not valid. It is the job of the
courts to determine when that happens.
Why do you think every criminal needs to rush things through court?
LOL!
Is it because they are afraid they are going to be punished?
This has nothing to do with deciding laws are unconstitutional, so
it's just not relevant here.
But it's worth mentioning: many criminals do NOT "rush things through
court." In many cases, they drag their heels, so that they can stay
out on bond while their case is pending, or they can outwait witnesses
whose memory is failing, or so they can find new ecidence and new
witnesses and new experts to testify for them, and so on. In death
penalty cases, the defense commonly drags out the case for DECADES,
rather than "rush things through court."
In other words, even your irrelevant example is FALSE, and once again
indicates how little you know about the legal system that you keep
making definitive statements about. Read some more. Learn something
accurate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
20 Mar 2007 03:49:25 AM |
|
|
On 20 Mar., 00:59, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:tvvtv21jh9dvsijlu455hna339diblbqpm@4ax.com,
Attila <<procho...@here.now> typed:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:27:16 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> in alt.abortion with message-id
<CnCLh.25144$68.20...@bignews8.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Innews:1174332896.135701.85470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
thomas p. <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> typed:
On 19 Mar., 20:09, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
By the constitutionally required process?
NO!
Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage laws? Please be
specific, with quotes.
Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to themselves c=
an
not be usurped by the federal government.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
How does that stop a state from changing a law or a state supreme
court reviewing the law?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
20 Mar 2007 06:33:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:59:24 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> in alt.abortion with message-id
<suFLh.25169$68.23046@bignews8.bellsouth.net> wrote:
In news:tvvtv21jh9dvsijlu455hna339diblbqpm@4ax.com,
Attila <<prochoice@here.now> typed:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:27:16 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> in alt.abortion with message-id
<CnCLh.25144$68.20395@bignews8.bellsouth.net> wrote:
In news:1174332896.135701.85470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
thomas p. <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> typed:
On 19 Mar., 20:09, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
By the constitutionally required process?
NO!
Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage laws? Please be
specific, with quotes.
Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to themselves can
not be usurped by the federal government.
Hardly an answer. But about what I expected from you.
And that is not what is said.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Nothing is said about any new powers not being allowed to be added to
the Constitution, for example.
What is this 'Constitutionally required process' you say was not
followed? Please be specific.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
19 Mar 2007 04:01:40 PM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who? One credible source, please and not the Bible since we can
prove that the Bible is so full of contradictions as to be ignored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
20 Mar 2007 01:11:27 PM |
|
|
"John" <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174338100.688321.143710@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who?
Says 37 US states who have banned fag marriage already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
20 Mar 2007 01:51:17 PM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174338100.688321.143710@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who?
Says 37 US states who have banned fag marriage already.
And your least favorite President, Clinton, was the one who signed the
Defense of Marriage Act into law.
Wanna make a bet that most of those go quietly by the wayside over the
next decade? Will everyone accept it? Nope! But most people will
find other things they care more about than gay marriage. It will
take several more years but the Internet Generation will undo most of
the worst things the TV generation enacted. Just a matter of time.
Let's face it, we're dinosaurs. We either adapt or perish. Or, most
likely, both.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 10:40:26 AM |
|
|
"John" <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174416677.142239.140810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174338100.688321.143710@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who?
Says 37 US states who have banned fag marriage already.
And your least favorite President, Clinton, was the one who signed the
Defense of Marriage Act into law.
So?
Wanna make a bet that most of those go quietly by the wayside over the
next decade? Will everyone accept it? Nope! But most people will
find other things they care more about than gay marriage. It will
take several more years but the Internet Generation will undo most of
the worst things the TV generation enacted. Just a matter of time.
Maybe, maybe not.
Let's face it, we're dinosaurs. We either adapt or perish. Or, most
likely, both.
I can make two absolutely certain guarantees. 1) I will NOT adapt. 2) I
will eventually perish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 02:01:33 PM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 11:40 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174416677.142239.140810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174338100.688321.143710@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who?
Says 37 US states who have banned fag marriage already.
And your least favorite President, Clinton, was the one who signed the
Defense of Marriage Act into law.
So?
Wanna make a bet that most of those go quietly by the wayside over the
next decade? Will everyone accept it? Nope! But most people will
find other things they care more about than gay marriage. It will
take several more years but the Internet Generation will undo most of
the worst things the TV generation enacted. Just a matter of time.
Maybe, maybe not.
Let's face it, we're dinosaurs. We either adapt or perish. Or, most
likely, both.
I can make two absolutely certain guarantees. 1) I will NOT adapt. 2) I
will eventually perish.
That's why I kind of have a bit of grudging respect for you. Even
when wrong you stick to your guns--but, damn, you're a profane one.
I think the gays should go for acceptance of civil unions now and then
just make the next step when no one's looking. I personally think the
government should be out of the marriage business. Leave it to the
people and their faith. Marriage is just a word in the lexicon but a
committment of faithfulness between two people. I think most people
will eventually see that the greatest threat to marriage is not
homosexuals but the lack of respect between people.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions |
21 Mar 2007 05:49:55 PM |
|
|
"John" <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174503693.823963.230300@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 11:40 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174416677.142239.140810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174338100.688321.143710@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322257.074547.319270@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who?
Says 37 US states who have banned fag marriage already.
And your least favorite President, Clinton, was the one who signed the
Defense of Marriage Act into law.
So?
Wanna make a bet that most of those go quietly by the wayside over the
next decade? Will everyone accept it? Nope! But most people will
find other things they care more about than gay marriage. It will
take several more years but the Internet Generation will undo most of
the worst things the TV generation enacted. Just a matter of time.
Maybe, maybe not.
Let's face it, we're dinosaurs. We either adapt or perish. Or, most
likely, both.
I can make two absolutely certain guarantees. 1) I will NOT adapt. 2) I
will eventually perish.
That's why I kind of have a bit of grudging respect for you. Even
when wrong you stick to your guns--but, damn, you're a profane one.
Hahahahhaha!!!
I think the gays should go for acceptance of civil unions now and then
just make the next step when no one's looking.
The "next step" is merely psychological feel-good ***** that actually
won't get them what they really want. What they really want is to be
Normal - and nothing can do that.
If they would stop trying to hijack the M-word they'd probably already have
civil unions.
I personally think the
government should be out of the marriage business. Leave it to the
people and their faith. Marriage is just a word in the lexicon but a
committment of faithfulness between two people. I think most people
will eventually see that the greatest threat to marriage is not
homosexuals but the lack of respect between people.
I would ordinarily agree with you had the fags (4% of the population) not
attempted an all-out assault on us (the 96% of the population).
They chose this fight 10 years ago and have NOT had their rights for 10
years. Nor will they probably for another 10 years. Had they said,
"Hellloooo, we'd like the same rights you folks have but we'd like to call
it "civil union," okay with you?" It would have been DONE in a year.
They picked this fight, we didn't.
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
