| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gregory Gadow" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2003 10:12:40 AM |
| Object: |
MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
In the United States, Vermont is the only state to allow same-sex
couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil
unions, rather than marriages.
California's State Assembly has passed a domestic partnership law to
provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts court said the state "failed to
identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage
to same-sex couples."
Arguments in the case were heard March 4. Under its internal guidelines,
the court usually tries to issue decisions within 130 days of hearing
such arguments, but the decision went past the anticipated summer
deadline.
The case was filed by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage
licenses and has attracted national attention, with advocates on both
sides predicting that the Massachusetts court could become the first in
the nation to legalize gay marriage.
"We're talking about people who don't have equality under the law and
should have it, because all citizens in this state are born free and
equal," Mary Bonauto, an attorney for the plaintiffs who also works for
the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said last
summer.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional,
and last June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario
struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
States determine marriage laws
In the United States, marriage laws are determined by states, and a
number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying, often
also barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another
state. The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while
not an outright ban on gay marriage, declares that states are not
required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, also effectively bars the federal
government from recognizing same-sex unions by defining marriage as "a
legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and
spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Among the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case are Julie and Hillary
Goodridge, women who have been a couple for 16 years. They are raising a
daughter, Annie, who is 7 years old.
In Goodridge et al v. Department of Public Health, the Goodridges and
six other couples seek recognition of their marriages.
Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Judith Yogman argued the
state's case before the court in March, saying the state wants to
encourage the heterosexual model of marriage.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly had argued it is for the
legislature, not the courts, to decide whether to redefine the
institution of marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 10:16:36 AM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as
others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender
of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no
connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please,
when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly woman
and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street in
every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses, America's
Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families as
they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would destroy
marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it's happened,"
he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to
have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this
morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is
the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a true
accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one uncomfirmed
report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible
upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report
that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition
and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of
new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that
this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the
financial reponsibility for their families, even if they no longer love them
and insist on masturbating in public.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alun Harford" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 12:48:05 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw.com> wrote in message
news:EBrub.250$Ek.97@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as
others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the
fender
of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I feel
no
connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I
please,
when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly
woman
and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street in
every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses, America's
Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families
as
they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would
destroy
marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it's happened,"
he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to
have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this
morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is
the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a
true
accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one uncomfirmed
report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible
upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report
that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition
and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of
new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that
this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the
financial reponsibility for their families, even if they no longer love
them
and insist on masturbating in public.
Ouch.
I laughed so hard I fell off my chair.
:-)
Alun Harford
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 10:42:04 AM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2003, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:EBrub.250$Ek.97@twister.austin.rr.com:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of
allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged
the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution,
The Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this
morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are
citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the
fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he
insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just
want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it." With that
he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her
"tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street
in every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses,
America's Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and
their families as they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would
destroy marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now
it's happened," he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had,
I wouldn't of had to have sex with three different strange men in a
public restroom this morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big
is the change that swept America this morning that it may be days
before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand,
one uncomfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University,
defecating on his bible upon hearing the news, while other witnesses
have come forward to report that they had seen Pat Robertson, former
leader of the Christian Coalition and the host of the 700 club,
enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the
thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children.
It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and that Christians
will yet accept the financial reponsibility for their families, even
if they no longer love them and insist on masturbating in public.
LMAO!!
Ya know, the author has a good point, one that I've been thinking for a
while... if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the
same sex. Your marriage isn't suddenly going to be irrelevant because
gay people were given their basic civil rights. Heh.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 11:15:33 AM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94376CDBF4C56Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 18 Nov 2003, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:EBrub.250$Ek.97@twister.austin.rr.com:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of
allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged
the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution,
The Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this
morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are
citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the
fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he
insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just
want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it." With that
he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her
"tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street
in every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses,
America's Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and
their families as they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would
destroy marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now
it's happened," he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had,
I wouldn't of had to have sex with three different strange men in a
public restroom this morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big
is the change that swept America this morning that it may be days
before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand,
one uncomfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University,
defecating on his bible upon hearing the news, while other witnesses
have come forward to report that they had seen Pat Robertson, former
leader of the Christian Coalition and the host of the 700 club,
enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the
thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children.
It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and that Christians
will yet accept the financial reponsibility for their families, even
if they no longer love them and insist on masturbating in public.
LMAO!!
Ya know, the author has a good point, one that I've been thinking for a
while... if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the
same sex. Your marriage isn't suddenly going to be irrelevant because
gay people were given their basic civil rights. Heh.
I've had similar discussions with my step-mom (Jaq) over the years. I asked
her if it suddenly diminishes her marriage to my dad if two men/women are
married? Is their relationship so shallow that the mere presence of a gay
couple somehow cheapens their own marriage? (The conversation was
considerably longer, but this was the jist of it.)
She gave me this puzzled look and then began speaking about God(tm) and how
he didn't like it, and it wouldn't be a REAL marriage.
I then reminded her that I am not only an Atheist, but an ordained minister:
1.) Is my legally binding marriage no longer valid, and if so, has she
spoken to Jen (my wife of ten years) about this; and
2.) I performed the ceremony that wedded my nephew and his wife. Is THEIR
marriage now invalid, and has anyone notified the state of Texas?
All of THAT was okay.....
No, Mekkala, my questions remain inadequately answered.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 01:21:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:36 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw.com> ejaculated:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as
others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
We may laugh, but there are people that believe this *****. In fact,
one retard actually wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper
(what's more disturbing is that it was published) claiming that
granting homosexuals equal rights wrt marriage would result in just
the sort of social decay parodied above.
I don't see how someone can think like that, but these people are out
there...in our neighborhoods...voting. Scary.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 01:32:42 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2003, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:l5skrvoonm5vilgsp2ekolg6bfjke5ng97@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:36 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yehaw.com> ejaculated:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of
allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who
challenged the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find
a solution, The Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this
morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are
citizens too.
We may laugh, but there are people that believe this *****. In fact,
one retard actually wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper
(what's more disturbing is that it was published) claiming that
granting homosexuals equal rights wrt marriage would result in just
the sort of social decay parodied above.
I don't see how someone can think like that, but these people are out
there...in our neighborhoods...voting. Scary.
No kidding. I've known people who would read that article and their
eyes would bug out in horror as they ran to the nearest gun store to arm
themselves to the teeth in anticipation of horny neighbors descending on
their pet cat.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 11:02:27 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:32:42 GMT, a stranger
called by some Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
No kidding. I've known people who would read that article and their
eyes would bug out in horror as they ran to the nearest gun store to arm
themselves to the teeth in anticipation of horny neighbors descending on
their pet cat.
Well, it depends.. is it a Siamese?
--
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: "3D Master" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
19 Nov 2003 11:25:26 AM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
No kidding. I've known people who would read that article and their
eyes would bug out in horror as they ran to the nearest gun store to arm
themselves to the teeth in anticipation of horny neighbors descending on
their pet cat.
Perhaps one should point out to such people that gay marriage are 100%,
legal, acknowledged as a real marriage, and the couple is awarded all
the rights and privilage of marriage straight married couples also get
right over here in the Netherlands. Then see if that news causes any
change in behavior! :D
3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander
"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~
Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 10:25:33 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as
others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender
of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no
connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please,
when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly woman
and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street in
every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses, America's
Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families as
they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would destroy
marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it's happened,"
he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to
have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this
morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is
the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a true
accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one uncomfirmed
report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible
upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report
that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition
and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of
new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that
this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the
financial reponsibility for their families, even if they no longer love them
and insist on masturbating in public.
I read this, but it was such an obvious parody that I didn't connect it to a
real-world court ruling.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! -more info |
18 Nov 2003 10:29:27 AM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA47FC.743D54D1@serv.net...
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net...
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing
marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law,
and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The
Associated Press reported.
<snip>
Here is a related story, originally posted by Rob Blade:
Traditional marriage in America comes to an end
www.WorldNutDaily.org
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning,
as
others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the
fender
of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I
feel no
connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I
please,
when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly
woman
and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street in
every city & town in America. Once devoted parents & spouses, America's
Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their
families as
they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti human rights
activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would
destroy
marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it's
happened,"
he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had
to
have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this
morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big
is
the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a
true
accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one uncomfirmed
report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his
bible
upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report
that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian
Coalition
and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands
of
new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped
that
this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the
financial reponsibility for their families, even if they no longer love
them
and insist on masturbating in public.
I read this, but it was such an obvious parody that I didn't connect it to
a
real-world court ruling.
I sat here reading the first paragraph to my wife, and laughed my ***** off
the whole time.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 05:09:08 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> thought hard and said:
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Why the hell do people care if gays marry anyway?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alun Harford" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 08:08:13 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mj9lrvk81uj6c8hpm8v1uamtaatlh7422v@4ax.com...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> thought hard and said:
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Why the hell do people care if gays marry anyway?
Because as Christians, it is their DUTY to marginalise people with different
views, and then scream 'persecution' when they rudely return the favour.
Alun Harford
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
19 Nov 2003 02:12:01 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mj9lrvk81uj6c8hpm8v1uamtaatlh7422v@4ax.com...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> thought hard and said:
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Why the hell do people care if gays marry anyway?
I don't know. Bigots are bigots.
I read this morning that Bush has condemned the ruling and is pushing a
Constitutional Amendment to outlaw gay marriage altogether. Such an
Amendment would be devastating to the cause of equal rights.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
19 Nov 2003 02:31:11 PM |
|
|
I read this morning that Bush has condemned the ruling and is pushing a
Constitutional Amendment to outlaw gay marriage altogether. Such an
Amendment would be devastating to the cause of equal rights.
But it is the only way exclusionary marriage laws could ever be upheld.
Such an amendment would require a repeal of the freedom of association clause
of the 1st Amendment and a repeal of the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. It could also overturn such Supreme Court decisions like Loving v.
Virginia and allow states to reimpose miscegenation laws.
Also, such a provision is an attack on what, until recently, has been the most
sacrosanct conservative platform: smaller, less intrusive government. Such an
amendment would increase the powers of the governement and strip rights away
from invidivuals and would be a complete reversal of traditional conservative
ideology. All the other amendments of the Constitution have increased the
rights of individuals and put restrictions on government power. This one would
do the opposite.
Marriage is an institution between the individuals concerned, not the State. It
is long time that we got the State out sanctioning, or refusing to sanction,
the private consensual interpersonal relationships of its citizens.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
19 Nov 2003 03:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.complex> wrote in message
news:20031119153111.09973.00000537@mb-m01.aol.com...
Also, such a provision is an attack on what, until recently, has been the
most
sacrosanct conservative platform: smaller, less intrusive government.
Though the conservatives repeatedly repeat this mantra, history shows that
they support more intrusive, bigger government. Clear examples of this
hypocrisy, in addition to their anti gay marriage stance, include their
anti-abortion sentiment, their desire to outlaw flag-burning, and their
support of huge increases in military spending.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
20 Nov 2003 10:40:20 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> writes:
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.complex> wrote in message
news:20031119153111.09973.00000537@mb-m01.aol.com...
Also, such a provision is an attack on what, until recently, has been the
most
sacrosanct conservative platform: smaller, less intrusive government.
Though the conservatives repeatedly repeat this mantra, history shows that
they support more intrusive, bigger government. Clear examples of this
hypocrisy, in addition to their anti gay marriage stance, include their
anti-abortion sentiment, their desire to outlaw flag-burning, and their
support of huge increases in military spending.
You got it all wrong; conservatives want a federal
government so small it fits in your bedroom.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: AQOTM: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
20 Nov 2003 10:51:05 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
<lossy compression>
You got it all wrong; conservatives want a federal
government so small it fits in your bedroom.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Seconds?
--
EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician
A.A. #1966
"Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient
citizenship as the ability to read and write." - H.G. Wells
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
20 Nov 2003 11:27:21 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:51:05 -0500, Carl Kaufmann
<cwkaufmann@netscape.net> wrote:
Brian Westley wrote:
<lossy compression>
You got it all wrong; conservatives want a federal
government so small it fits in your bedroom.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Seconds?
Quite cutting. I like it. Seconded, though I think it could do
without the "You got it all wrong" part. The rest of it stands alone
just fine as far as I can tell. :-)
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
22 Nov 2003 05:36:54 AM |
|
|
In article <3fd4a1fd.23257981@localhost>,
(Bill, The Avender) wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:51:05 -0500, Carl Kaufmann
<cwkaufmann@netscape.net> wrote:
Brian Westley wrote:
<lossy compression>
You got it all wrong; conservatives want a federal
government so small it fits in your bedroom.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Seconds?
Quite cutting. I like it. Seconded, though I think it could do
without the "You got it all wrong" part. The rest of it stands alone
just fine as far as I can tell. :-)
Recorded.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 05:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:09:08 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> thought hard and said:
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Why the hell do people care if gays marry anyway?
When I lived in the Bay Area a gay couple told me that it wasn't about
marriage per se but the rights that come with it - hospital visitation
rights, mutual dependance etc which they are denied.
Being single and having a long-time girlfriend I can fully umderstand
this - although her parents love me and my mother loves her so a lot
of the problems other non-conventional couples have don't occur (there
other problems though, like 3000 miles, we're salt'n'pepper and
interfaith).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 11:43:24 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 12:21:49 PM |
|
|
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony, there has
never been a restriction that only religious ministers can officiate at a
marriage. Every state has always allowed civil authorities, such as judges and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage. Further, every
state requires that official marriages be registered with the civil
authorities. (The exception of common law marriage is recognized in only a few
states and rarely grants the complete set of rights and privileges given in
official marriage.) Under the law, marriage is and always has been a civil
institution. And as a civil institution, religious arguments against same-sex
marriage are worth the same as religious arguments against interracial
marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 12:28:47 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA633D.8EF1187E@serv.net...
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony, there has
never been a restriction that only religious ministers can officiate at a
marriage. Every state has always allowed civil authorities, such as judges
and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage.
Here! Here! <pounds table with fist>
I am a militant Atheist, and became an ordained minister through the Church
of Universal Life, mainly out of spite.
On October 11, 2003, I officiated the marriage between my nephew and his
[now] wife. I personally filed these documents with Travis County and they
are valid.
The purpose of the Texas laws on who can or can't perform a marriage are to
prevent "wedding chapels" for fees like there are in Vegas. It has NOTHING
to do with religious beliefs nor convictions.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
Further, every
state requires that official marriages be registered with the civil
authorities. (The exception of common law marriage is recognized in only a
few
states and rarely grants the complete set of rights and privileges given
in
official marriage.) Under the law, marriage is and always has been a civil
institution. And as a civil institution, religious arguments against
same-sex
marriage are worth the same as religious arguments against interracial
marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 01:03:06 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA633D.8EF1187E@serv.net...
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony, there has
never been a restriction that only religious ministers can officiate at a
marriage. Every state has always allowed civil authorities, such as judges
and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage.
Here! Here! <pounds table with fist>
I am a militant Atheist, and became an ordained minister through the Church
of Universal Life, mainly out of spite.
I've turned my ordination in to a rather enjoyable "ministry":
http://www.humanist-celebrant.com
On October 11, 2003, I officiated the marriage between my nephew and his
[now] wife. I personally filed these documents with Travis County and they
are valid.
The purpose of the Texas laws on who can or can't perform a marriage are to
prevent "wedding chapels" for fees like there are in Vegas. It has NOTHING
to do with religious beliefs nor convictions.
Marriage law in Washington is rather fun. State law says that the marriage
license is not valid until the *third* day after it is issued. I first thought
it had to do with state contract law, which allows for a three day "buyer's
remorse" period in many other contracts. It turns out the reality is far more
amusing.
It goes back to the late 1800s, when Washington was the main starting point for
people heading to the Alaska gold fields. People would stock up on supplies in
Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia before heading north, and would come back from time
to time to restock. So, suppose you are a man who's been out in the wilderness
for the last year and a half? You visit the big city with a few ounces of gold
dust in your pocket and several exaggerated stories as to the wealth of your
claim and your local importance. What two places are you going to visit first?
Yup: a bar and a brothel, probably in that order.
Miners were waking up hung over and married so often that the Legislature
stepped in. Since then, the law has required time to sober up before the license
became useable.
Further, every
state requires that official marriages be registered with the civil
authorities. (The exception of common law marriage is recognized in only a
few
states and rarely grants the complete set of rights and privileges given in
official marriage.) Under the law, marriage is and always has been a civil
institution. And as a civil institution, religious arguments against
same-sex
marriage are worth the same as religious arguments against interracial
marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 05:59:14 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA6CEA.330E22EC@serv.net...
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA633D.8EF1187E@serv.net...
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they
make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that
an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious
freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony, there
has
never been a restriction that only religious ministers can officiate
at a
marriage. Every state has always allowed civil authorities, such as
judges
and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage.
Here! Here! <pounds table with fist>
I am a militant Atheist, and became an ordained minister through the
Church
of Universal Life, mainly out of spite.
I've turned my ordination in to a rather enjoyable "ministry":
I hold services every Sunday (weather permitting) on Lake Travis in my boat.
I'll check out your website when I get home from fire department business.
-DMc
http://www.humanist-celebrant.com
On October 11, 2003, I officiated the marriage between my nephew and his
[now] wife. I personally filed these documents with Travis County and
they
are valid.
The purpose of the Texas laws on who can or can't perform a marriage are
to
prevent "wedding chapels" for fees like there are in Vegas. It has
NOTHING
to do with religious beliefs nor convictions.
Marriage law in Washington is rather fun. State law says that the marriage
license is not valid until the *third* day after it is issued. I first
thought
it had to do with state contract law, which allows for a three day
"buyer's
remorse" period in many other contracts. It turns out the reality is far
more
amusing.
It goes back to the late 1800s, when Washington was the main starting
point for
people heading to the Alaska gold fields. People would stock up on
supplies in
Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia before heading north, and would come back from
time
to time to restock. So, suppose you are a man who's been out in the
wilderness
for the last year and a half? You visit the big city with a few ounces of
gold
dust in your pocket and several exaggerated stories as to the wealth of
your
claim and your local importance. What two places are you going to visit
first?
Yup: a bar and a brothel, probably in that order.
Miners were waking up hung over and married so often that the Legislature
stepped in. Since then, the law has required time to sober up before the
license
became useable.
Further, every
state requires that official marriages be registered with the civil
authorities. (The exception of common law marriage is recognized in
only a
few
states and rarely grants the complete set of rights and privileges
given in
official marriage.) Under the law, marriage is and always has been a
civil
institution. And as a civil institution, religious arguments against
same-sex
marriage are worth the same as religious arguments against interracial
marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 10:50:09 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:59:14 GMT, a stranger
called by some "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw.com> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
I hold services every Sunday (weather permitting) on Lake Travis in my boat.
As a Tim Powers fan, who just reread "Last Call", that really freaks
me out.
--
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: "Diederik" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 06:57:04 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3FBA6CEA.330E22EC@serv.net>...
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA633D.8EF1187E@serv.net...
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state
cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if they make
"marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I think that an
inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony, there has
never been a restriction that only religious ministers can officiate at a
marriage. Every state has always allowed civil authorities, such as judges
and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage.
Here! Here! <pounds table with fist>
I am a militant Atheist, and became an ordained minister through the Church
of Universal Life, mainly out of spite.
I've turned my ordination in to a rather enjoyable "ministry":
http://www.humanist-celebrant.com
So as one ULC minister to another, how's your wedding business doing?
Diederik
Rational Hedonist #1
Ordained ULC Minister
On October 11, 2003, I officiated the marriage between my nephew and his
[now] wife. I personally filed these documents with Travis County and they
are valid.
The purpose of the Texas laws on who can or can't perform a marriage are to
prevent "wedding chapels" for fees like there are in Vegas. It has NOTHING
to do with religious beliefs nor convictions.
Marriage law in Washington is rather fun. State law says that the marriage
license is not valid until the *third* day after it is issued. I first thought
it had to do with state contract law, which allows for a three day "buyer's
remorse" period in many other contracts. It turns out the reality is far more
amusing.
It goes back to the late 1800s, when Washington was the main starting point for
people heading to the Alaska gold fields. People would stock up on supplies in
Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia before heading north, and would come back from time
to time to restock. So, suppose you are a man who's been out in the wilderness
for the last year and a half? You visit the big city with a few ounces of gold
dust in your pocket and several exaggerated stories as to the wealth of your
claim and your local importance. What two places are you going to visit first?
Yup: a bar and a brothel, probably in that order.
Miners were waking up hung over and married so often that the Legislature
stepped in. Since then, the law has required time to sober up before the license
became useable.
Further, every
state requires that official marriages be registered with the civil
authorities. (The exception of common law marriage is recognized in only a
few
states and rarely grants the complete set of rights and privileges given in
official marriage.) Under the law, marriage is and always has been a civil
institution. And as a civil institution, religious arguments against
same-sex
marriage are worth the same as religious arguments against interracial
marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
19 Nov 2003 08:18:58 AM |
|
|
Diederik wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3FBA6CEA.330E22EC@serv.net>...
http://www.humanist-celebrant.com
So as one ULC minister to another, how's your wedding business doing?
Not bad. I'm redesigning my site; next year I will be strongly emphasizing weddings over
the other ceremonies and expanding my offerings to include some merchandise (wedding
candles, formal frame for the marriage certificate, etc)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 10:48:56 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:03:06 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
Marriage law in Washington is rather fun. State law says that the marriage
license is not valid until the *third* day after it is issued. I first thought
it had to do with state contract law, which allows for a three day "buyer's
remorse" period in many other contracts. It turns out the reality is far more
amusing.
It goes back to the late 1800s, when Washington was the main starting point for
people heading to the Alaska gold fields. People would stock up on supplies in
Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia before heading north, and would come back from time
to time to restock. So, suppose you are a man who's been out in the wilderness
for the last year and a half? You visit the big city with a few ounces of gold
dust in your pocket and several exaggerated stories as to the wealth of your
claim and your local importance. What two places are you going to visit first?
Yup: a bar and a brothel, probably in that order.
Miners were waking up hung over and married so often that the Legislature
stepped in. Since then, the law has required time to sober up before the license
became useable.
I love it! I'm going to steral that for a game I'm running..
--
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: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
18 Nov 2003 01:07:44 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2003, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:3FBA6CEA.330E22EC@serv.net:
The other Donald wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBA633D.8EF1187E@serv.net...
Dave W wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:3FBA44F8.FCFEAD2@serv.net:
Reprinted in full from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.
html
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the
state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Just a thought. I wonder if the (mostly)xians realize that if
they make "marriage" officially a holy, sanctified....whatever. I
think that an inroad *for* gay marriage is made on the grounds of
religious freedom.
I don't think they can see that far. All the better.
The argument is, under law, irrelevant.
While religious ministers may *officiate* at a wedding ceremony,
there has never been a restriction that only religious ministers
can officiate at a marriage. Every state has always allowed civil
authorities, such as judges
and
even notary publics, to oversee the creation of a marriage.
Here! Here! <pounds table with fist>
I am a militant Atheist, and became an ordained minister through the
Church of Universal Life, mainly out of spite.
I've turned my ordination in to a rather enjoyable "ministry":
http://www.humanist-celebrant.com
On October 11, 2003, I officiated the marriage between my nephew and
his [now] wife. I personally filed these documents with Travis County
and they are valid.
The purpose of the Texas laws on who can or can't perform a marriage
are to prevent "wedding chapels" for fees like there are in Vegas. It
has NOTHING to do with religious beliefs nor convictions.
Marriage law in Washington is rather fun. State law says that the
marriage license is not valid until the *third* day after it is
issued. I first thought it had to do with state contract law, which
allows for a three day "buyer's remorse" period in many other
contracts. It turns out the reality is far more amusing.
It goes back to the late 1800s, when Washington was the main starting
point for people heading to the Alaska gold fields. People would stock
up on supplies in Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia before heading north, and
would come back from time to time to restock. So, suppose you are a
man who's been out in the wilderness for the last year and a half? You
visit the big city with a few ounces of gold dust in your pocket and
several exaggerated stories as to the wealth of your claim and your
local importance. What two places are you going to visit first? Yup: a
bar and a brothel, probably in that order.
Miners were waking up hung over and married so often that the
Legislature stepped in. Since then, the law has required time to sober
up before the license became useable.
LMAO!!! So, does that mean that for three days after you marry, you
still have the option to tear up your license and say, "Wait, no, I
didn't really mean it!"
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
