Religions > Atheism > Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2003 06:55:16 PM |
| Object: |
Faggots lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
Hey faggots, I'm still confused. Help me out here. Didn't you faggots say
that the tide has changed and that EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, and
that only a few minor bigots won't accept? Didn't you say the majority of
people are accepting ***** behavior? I don't understand this article, I am
very confused. Why is it that faggots can only be accepted by imposing
their will on other people and seeking out sypathetic judges to change laws
for them? How come they can't take their case to the 'majority public' in
the voting booths? Surely if EVERYONE is accepting faggots now, they should
EASILY get these laws passed on the ballots!! Why is it that 38 states now
have a consititutional ban on ***** marriages if the majority of the voters
want otherwise? Help me out here...
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/national/21GAY.html?ex=1073192400&en=a887ec494ccc1c01&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an
amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also
found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a
potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the
Republicans in the 2004 election.
Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the
public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive
of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East
Coast.
Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view
marriage itself. For a majority of Americans - 53 percent - marriage is
largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay
marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal
matter and a majority of those people - 55 percent - say they support gay
marriage.
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among
respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment
to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a
woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.
The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last
month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution.
That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States
Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment
immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried
that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But
last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will
support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man
and a woman, codify that."
The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can
exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its
evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.
Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil
unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic
nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil
unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too
liberal for mainstream America.
The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about
same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that
have not been approved by the legislative process.
"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it,"
said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,
which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a
constitutional ban.
The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in
telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling
error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights
tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.
This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal
rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable
with same-sex relations.
For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual
relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June
and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll
conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual
relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest
poll said they should be legal.
Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley,
N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he
strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 12:54:01 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:54:24 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Since you do not want to compromise and accept civil unions, we no longer
see any reason why we should have to put up with your attack on our culture.
See "Vrown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
You culture? I'm as much an American as you are.. better even.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 03:10:28 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:54:24 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Since you do not want to compromise and accept civil unions, we no longer
see any reason why we should have to put up with your attack on our
culture.
See "Vrown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot be
changed, like one's skin color.
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Why do atheists who despise religion always quote biblical verses?
A book written and interpreted by man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 09:21:59 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:10:28 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
See "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
Go look up "precedent." The separate but equal question has been
settled.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot be
changed, like one's skin color.
I cannot beconme straight. I am bisexual.
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Why do atheists who despise religion always quote biblical verses?
A book written and interpreted by man.
Because it is a stupid book, filled with silly quotes like this. But
just for you, I'll change.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 10:02:55 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:2rrr009agvh3m4f5chsojva9hg8res3c61@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:10:28 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
See "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
Go look up "precedent." The separate but equal question has been
settled.
And it does not apply here to a person's choice.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot
be
changed, like one's skin color.
I cannot beconme straight. I am bisexual.
Yes you can
Why do atheists who despise religion always quote biblical verses?
A book written and interpreted by man.
Because it is a stupid book, filled with silly quotes like this. But
just for you, I'll change.
A book written by man, and over the ages interpreted by man.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
And that should be #895
And one only need to look at the history of the Spanish Inquisition as
proof.
Blaise Pascal who was religious also wrote this in Pense'es
Found in section 2 paragraph 72.
http://www.ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm
The whole visible world is only an imperceptible atom in the ample bosom of
nature. No idea approaches it. We may enlarge our conceptions beyond an
imaginable space; we only produce atoms in comparison with the reality of
things. It is an infinite sphere, the centre of which is everywhere, the
circumference nowhere. In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the
almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
21 Jan 2004 09:49:29 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:2rrr009agvh3m4f5chsojva9hg8res3c61@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:10:28 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
See "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
Go look up "precedent." The separate but equal question has been
settled.
And it does not apply here to a person's choice.
Religion is a CHOICE and yet it has legal protections.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot
be
changed, like one's skin color.
I cannot beconme straight. I am bisexual.
Yes you can
Please provide a citation from the recent, peer reviewed,
scientific literature to prove this assertion.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
20 Jan 2004 04:03:34 PM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:54:24 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Since you do not want to compromise and accept civil unions, we no longer
see any reason why we should have to put up with your attack on our
culture.
See "Vrown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot be
changed, like one's skin color.
I should point out that the penis/vagina marriage laws discriminate
on the basis of SEX/GENDER. Last time I checked, sex cannot be
changed [except in a few rare cases] this the law is
unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of the SEX of the
applicants for a marriage license.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 05:59:20 PM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400DA5B6.7000209@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8uq00lsbjo6e7pa3aodicg7gpappdcjo8@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:54:24 -0900, a stranger
called by some "dpr" <why> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Since you do not want to compromise and accept civil unions, we no
longer
see any reason why we should have to put up with your attack on our
culture.
See "Vrown v. Topeka Board of Education" for the SCOTUS position on
"separate but equal."
That does not apply here. For starters Civil Union legislation would
make
homosexual marriage have the same legal protections as a traditional
marriage. Hence there is no separation at all.
The Separate but equal issue in the above case was on issues that cannot
be
changed, like one's skin color.
I should point out that the penis/vagina
Not at issue here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
20 Jan 2004 12:19:30 PM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is permitting MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a certificate of
MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay there.
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts and restrict marriage
to male/female only while still respecting S15[1] of the Charter.
The silence has been deafening!
Not to count your buzzards before they are hatched!
Bush will be reelected, the dems will lose more seats in the House and
Senate.
We are fixing to boot you all out of here.
Back in the closet you go.
Since you do not want to compromise and accept civil unions,
Well so much for ALL are EQUAL. You want gays to accept second
class citizenship... no wonder the USA is seen as a human rights
backwater!
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 03:06:02 PM |
|
|
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is permitting MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a certificate of
MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay there.
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate from the bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state laws to undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada will more than
likely do the same. Like here only small pockets of Canada take the militant
homosexual stance, most of Canada thinks and feels that marriage is between
a man and a women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
20 Jan 2004 04:01:06 PM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is permitting MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a certificate of
MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage? It was contracted
in Canada under the laws of Canada and is perfectly valid in Canada.
Now there is a question about having it recognised in the USA and
I am not sure what the treaty obligations are. IF the US has signed
a treaty agreeing to reciprocal recognition of marriages between the
US and Canada, then they have to recognise his marriage or they
abrogate the terms of the treaty.
IF the US does not recognise his marriage and they abrogate the
treaty, then Canada would be perfectly free not to recognise any
valid marriages contracted in the USA. That would mean that any US
married couple would suddenly find themselves unmarried when they
come to Canada. Just because the US wants to spite some same-sex
couples, they could inconvenience millions of opposite sex couples
who visit Canada.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay there.
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate from the bench.
Please point out where the Canadian courts "legislated from the
bench". The Courts in question found the penis/vagina marriage laws
- laws that in Canada come are "common law" also known as "judge
made law" - unconstitutional under S15[1] of the Charter.
That is what the courts do, rule on the consttitutionality of the
laws. When it is a ruling you like, you don't complain... when it
is s ruling you dislike, you speak of "activist judges" and
"legislating from the bench". Judges are by and large the most
conservative bunch around and have to be persuaded through evidence
and precedent that a law is unconstitutional
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state laws to undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada will more than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here. The reason is that in Canada, the
marriage laws are made by the federal government while the provinces
only administer the laws on behalf of the feds. The federal
government had 60 days from the issuance of the Ontario court ruling
to appeal, and again, 60 days from the issuance of the BC court
decision to appeal, and again, 60 days form the issuance of the
Quebec decision to appeal - all of the decisions issued at different
but somewhat overlapping times giving the feds between 90 and 120
days to launch an appeal. The feds chose not to appeal the rulings
as the rulings were based on precedents set in Charter cases by the
Supreme Court Of Canada [SCOC].
The federal government had sent its best and brightes legal minds,
backed by millions of taxpayer dollars, before the BC, Ontario and
Quebec high courts. They tried all the usual arguments and they
lost three times in three different provinces before three different
high courts. To have appealed to the SCOC would have just been a
delaying action that would have wasted millions more taxpayer
dollars as they would have lost before the SCOC since the provincial
rulings were based on SCOC rulings in Charter cases.
Like here only small pockets of Canada take the militant
homosexual stance,
I am not sure what my mean by "the militant homosexual stance".
What the court cases were about was civil rights and the
constitutionality of the law. It was found to be unconstitutional
and thus struck down - that happens all the time. The feds had
their chance to appeal and chose not to as they knew the law was
unconstitutional.
most of Canada thinks and feels that marriage is between
a man and a women.
Pols taken both before and after the court decisions were rendered
found that the majority of Canadians - 52% IIRC - were in favour of
EQUALITY for ALL citizens including EQUAL marriage rights. Some
months after the decisions were rendered, that number has increased
slightly to 54% IIRC. Canadians are are and large a fair minded,
eglatarian bunch who respect the diversity of our citizens.
The screaming and gnashing of teeth about same sex marriage is
coming form a small but shrill minority of religious conservatives.
For the rest of the citizens, the sky has not fallen and live goes
on as usual.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
20 Jan 2004 05:58:27 PM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400DA522.90206@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is permitting
MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a certificate of
MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage?
It is not legally recognized in America.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay there.
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let
that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate from the
bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state laws to
undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada will more
than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here.
Watch. Seems the idiots in Vancouver have ticked off quite a few Canadians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Hubbard" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
21 Jan 2004 01:46:57 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <why> wrote in news:100rfistgd0uq31@corp.supernews.com:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote
in message news:400DA522.90206@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is
permitting
MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a
certificate of MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is
anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage?
It is not legally recognized in America.
That doesn't make it illegal, stupid.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay
there. But it seems even in Canada the people there are
not going to let
that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could
ignore the rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate
from the
bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state
laws to
undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada
will more
than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here.
Watch. Seems the idiots in Vancouver have ticked off quite a few
Canadians.
So f***ing what. The old rules were unconstitutional under the
Charter. The rules that now apply in BC, Ontario and Quebec are
constitutional and will not be affected by histerical complaints
from the right wing bigots. BTW who cares what Vancouver thinks,
the BC parliament sits in Victoria.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
21 Jan 2004 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
Bernard Hubbard wrote:
"dpr" <why> wrote in news:100rfistgd0uq31@corp.supernews.com:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote
in message news:400DA522.90206@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
<snip>
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage?
It is not legally recognized in America.
That doesn't make it illegal, stupid.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay
there. But it seems even in Canada the people there are
not going to let
that
stand
for much longer either.
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could
ignore the rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate
from the
bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state
laws to
undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada
will more
than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here.
Watch. Seems the idiots in Vancouver have ticked off quite a few
Canadians.
So f***ing what. The old rules were unconstitutional under the
Charter. The rules that now apply in BC, Ontario and Quebec are
constitutional and will not be affected by histerical complaints
from the right wing bigots. BTW who cares what Vancouver thinks,
the BC parliament sits in Victoria.
Just a technical note: The BC legislature has NO say in the matter.
In Canada, marriage is federally regulated. The governing body
would be Parliament in Ottawa. The only say the BC legislature
*might* have is in the administration [issuance of marriage licences
and certificates and registration thereof] of the federal marriage
laws as the administration is a provincial responsibility.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
21 Jan 2004 09:41:55 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400DA522.90206@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
<snip>
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage?
It is not legally recognized in America.
That does not make it prima facie illegal. In Arabic countries,
marriage to multiple women is recognised but would not be recognised
in most western nations. That does not make the marriage illegal as
it was contracted under the laws of other nations and is perfectly
legal in the country of origin.
Once again, I note that you cut the substance of my remarks without
marking the deletion(s) - you are thereby bearing false witness
against your neighbour.
<snip>
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate from the
bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state laws to
undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada will more
than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here.
Watch. Seems the idiots in Vancouver have ticked off quite a few Canadians.
You have failed to post the legal basis on which the provisions of
S15[1] of the Charter can be ignored when it comes to EQUAL standing
and EQUAL application of the laws of Canada. This is a legal issue,
public opinion - and especially the opinion of some shrill bigots -
has no standing before the law.
Your dishonest snipping of the substance of my post without marking
the cut(s) is noted. Are you this dishonest in real life or just on
USEnet?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
21 Jan 2004 03:21:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:41:55 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote:
dpr wrote:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400DA522.90206@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
<L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:400D7132.3060606@noSpamThanks.net...
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3mrp005job40cb2i15sdhruoo3fopfuvta@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:56 -0900, "dpr" <why> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
<snip>
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in
America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
Just what exactly is illegal about his marriage?
It is not legally recognized in America.
That does not make it prima facie illegal. In Arabic countries,
marriage to multiple women is recognised but would not be recognised
in most western nations. That does not make the marriage illegal as
it was contracted under the laws of other nations and is perfectly
legal in the country of origin.
Once again, I note that you cut the substance of my remarks without
marking the deletion(s) - you are thereby bearing false witness
against your neighbour.
<snip>
BTW, I challenged the original poster so show the legal
reason/argument as to how the Canadian government could ignore the
rulings of three of the top provincial courts
The Canadian courts like ours are not supposed to legislate from the
bench.
Just like the people of Hawaii and Alaska changed their state laws to
undo
the courts legislation from the bench, the people of Canada will more
than
likely do the same.
That can not happen here.
Watch. Seems the idiots in Vancouver have ticked off quite a few Canadians.
You have failed to post the legal basis on which the provisions of
S15[1] of the Charter can be ignored when it comes to EQUAL standing
and EQUAL application of the laws of Canada. This is a legal issue,
public opinion - and especially the opinion of some shrill bigots -
has no standing before the law.
Your dishonest snipping of the substance of my post without marking
the cut(s) is noted. Are you this dishonest in real life or just on
USEnet?
Since the preposterous "jpr" posts anonymously one may presume that he
does not want his neighbors to know of his hatefulness - on this
forum he can open his ravaged heart and reveal the worm therein.
Oh Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night,
in the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy.
And with his dark secret love,
does thy life destroy.
Blake
----------------------------------------------------
"The United States is currently involved in a rather
expensive and extensive conflict with certain groups
of fundamentalist Muslims who have a similar attitude
concerning their moral code and its applicability to
you.
I doubt very much that you are willing to acquiesce
to their doctrines any more than I am willing to
acquiesce to yours."
John Petry
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on GayMarriage |
19 Jan 2004 11:45:17 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9t4n00dese2e09n5343giq2u6fm4vfq0ck@4ax.com...
OOOPS! Sorry about that Amelia dear -- Canada is permitting MARRIAGE
for same-gender couples and George and I have a certificate of
MARRIAGE issued in British Columbia!~
ward
Which of course is not recognized here in the USA, nor is anybody in America
required to recognize your illegal marriage.
So why don't you and george just move to BC and stay there.
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let that stand
for much longer either.
Naturally you can provide us with the legal argument as to how the
federal government can get out of allowing same sex marriage now
that the three highest courts or Canada's three most populous
provinces have said it must be permitted. I look forward to your
explanation of how the government can refuse same sex marriage and
still comply with S15{1] of the Charter.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexuals lose again - Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage |
19 Jan 2004 12:22:59 PM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> writes:
dpr wrote:
But it seems even in Canada the people there are not going to let
that stand for much longer either.
Naturally you can provide us with the legal argument as to how
the federal government can get out of allowing same sex marriage now
that the three highest courts or Canada's three most populous
provinces have said it must be permitted. I look forward to your
explanation of how the government can refuse same sex marriage and
still comply with S15{1] of the Charter.
Why would you expect him to show that? He's no doubt a right-wing
Republican and thinks that constitutions or charters can be ignored
whenever he wishes. As they had "***** Cheney" say about George Bush
in last summer's San Francisco Mime Troupe production of _Veronique of
the Mounties_, "He's a loser. He almost lost a rigged election."
The play had ***** Cheney and Condi Rice scheming to take over the
White House in 2008 by invading Canada, with our "ally" Greenland
supplying a fishing boat. It's kind of a test - if they can get the
U.S. public to go along with invading Canada, they figure they can get
by with anything.
The story involves the theft of a fossilized maple leaf that, as long
as it is Canadian hands, protects Canada from the U.S. by making us
all think, "It's cold up there, Duuuude." Naturally the Homeland
Security people go around in uniforms that look suspiciously like the
ones the Nazi's used.
As Veronique (the "twin cousin of Condi) and a librarian (obviously a
suspicous character) try to recover the stolen maple leaf, they run
across a group of rifle-toting fundamentalist Christians. They need
to get a ride, so they pass themselves off as "Sister ???? of
Confuscians for Christ" and "Sister ???? of the Congregation of
Homophobic Black Churches." Everyone joins in with a chorus of
"Praise the Lord," as the audience roars with laughter.
Finally the maple leaf ends up safely back in Canadian hands, and
the invasion immediately stops with the U.S. army going with the
Canadians to the nearest bar to order lots of Molson. Or something
like that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
