| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2006 10:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
Push for national gay-marriage ban |
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 01:59:28 PM |
|
|
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 03:14:10 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:32:13 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:44:20 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:48:13 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 10:16:21 PM |
|
|
writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" < > writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" < > writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
A while ago I posted a wikipedia URL explaining this issue very
clearly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:20:53 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
"I can be married here, but not married in Mississippi?!?" The
inter-racial marriage issue would be a precedent.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:15:25 AM |
|
|
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> writes:
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
It wasn't a question raised in the particular case we are discussing,
which is why I was pointing out the narrow scope of the dismissal.
The dismissal really just means, "Don't bother us again unless you
come up with something substantially different."
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause also gives congress the right to
legislate on such issues, so you might have to get the Defense of
Marriage Act repealed or declared unconstitutional before using the
"Full Faith and Credit" clause for a state law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 11:38:49 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> writes:
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
It wasn't a question raised in the particular case we are discussing,
Granted. I was just mentioning it.
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause also gives congress the right to
legislate on such issues, so you might have to get the Defense of
Marriage Act repealed or declared unconstitutional before using the
"Full Faith and Credit" clause for a state law.
It could be folded in. Lord knows that the state variants have been
declared unConstitutional several times.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 05:57:57 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> writes:
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
It wasn't a question raised in the particular case we are discussing,
which is why I was pointing out the narrow scope of the dismissal.
The dismissal really just means, "Don't bother us again unless you
come up with something substantially different."
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause also gives congress the right to
legislate on such issues, so you might have to get the Defense of
Marriage Act repealed or declared unconstitutional before using the
"Full Faith and Credit" clause for a state law.
I agree that the FF&C is a separate argument - and thus Baker plays no
role. However, I think the FF&C case is weak in light of Hyatt
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-42)
which confirmed the public-policy exception to FF&C:
'The full faith and credit command "is exacting" with respect to a final
judgment rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the
subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, Baker v. General
Motors Corp., 522 U. S. 222, 233, but is less demanding with respect to
choice of laws. The Clause does not compel a State to substitute the
statutes of other States for its own statues dealing with a subject
matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.'
So, if a state had a DOMA, it will likely prevail an FF&C challenge.
Oddly however, such a DOMA should not allow a state to opt out of
enforcing a divorce settlement of a same-sex couple because that is a
"final judgment" not a public policy.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 06:26:12 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> writes:
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
It wasn't a question raised in the particular case we are discussing,
which is why I was pointing out the narrow scope of the dismissal.
The dismissal really just means, "Don't bother us again unless you
come up with something substantially different."
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause also gives congress the right to
legislate on such issues, so you might have to get the Defense of
Marriage Act repealed or declared unconstitutional before using the
"Full Faith and Credit" clause for a state law.
I agree that the FF&C is a separate argument - and thus Baker plays
no role. However, I think the FF&C case is weak in light of Hyatt
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-42)
which confirmed the public-policy exception to FF&C: <snip>
Except you are missing the point. *All* I pointed out was what a
dismissal means, and that the issue regarding marriage wasn't settled,
just particular arguments in favor of it were found to be inadequate.
Dionisio mentioned one that might be used (asuming DOMA is repealed or
found to be unconstitutional). There can easily be others. I'm not
arguing on what those others might be - I'll leave that to lawyers
working on gay-rights issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 07:17:39 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> writes:
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
It wasn't a question raised in the particular case we are discussing,
which is why I was pointing out the narrow scope of the dismissal.
The dismissal really just means, "Don't bother us again unless you
come up with something substantially different."
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause also gives congress the right to
legislate on such issues, so you might have to get the Defense of
Marriage Act repealed or declared unconstitutional before using the
"Full Faith and Credit" clause for a state law.
I agree that the FF&C is a separate argument - and thus Baker plays
no role. However, I think the FF&C case is weak in light of Hyatt
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-42)
which confirmed the public-policy exception to FF&C: <snip>
Except you are missing the point. *All* I pointed out was what a
dismissal means, and that the issue regarding marriage wasn't settled,
just particular arguments in favor of it were found to be inadequate.
My point is those particular arguments are the only tenable ones being
made (except FF&C, which I think is a loser).
Dionisio mentioned one that might be used (asuming DOMA is repealed or
found to be unconstitutional). There can easily be others. I'm not
arguing on what those others might be - I'll leave that to lawyers
working on gay-rights issues.
Those lawyers aren't offering up any arguments other than what was
established in Baker and FF&C (Dionisio's arguments are bizarre).
Barring an FF&C ruling, I can't see any federal constitutionally
mandated same-sex marriage until SCOTUS reverses Baker.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 12:23:05 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
My point is those particular arguments are the only tenable ones being
made (except FF&C, which I think is a loser).
Dionisio mentioned one that might be used (asuming DOMA is repealed or
found to be unconstitutional). There can easily be others. I'm not
arguing on what those others might be - I'll leave that to lawyers
working on gay-rights issues.
Those lawyers aren't offering up any arguments other than what was
established in Baker and FF&C (Dionisio's arguments are
bizarre). Barring an FF&C ruling, I can't see any federal
constitutionally mandated same-sex marriage until SCOTUS reverses
Baker.
They haven't file anything yet, and there is no reason for them
to state their case before it is argued in court: why make it
easier for one's opponents to prepare their case by telling them
what you intend to do before you have to inform them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 07:32:25 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
My point is those particular arguments are the only tenable ones being
made (except FF&C, which I think is a loser).
Dionisio mentioned one that might be used (asuming DOMA is repealed or
found to be unconstitutional). There can easily be others. I'm not
arguing on what those others might be - I'll leave that to lawyers
working on gay-rights issues.
Those lawyers aren't offering up any arguments other than what was
established in Baker and FF&C (Dionisio's arguments are
bizarre). Barring an FF&C ruling, I can't see any federal
constitutionally mandated same-sex marriage until SCOTUS reverses
Baker.
They haven't file anything yet, and there is no reason for them
to state their case before it is argued in court: why make it
easier for one's opponents to prepare their case by telling them
what you intend to do before you have to inform them?
There have been two federal cases so far. Wilson discussed in the
Wikipedia's Baker link, and Hammer
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/04/MNGIAI3EMQ3.DTL&type=gaylesbian).
No new arguments are offered. You are in fantasy land if you think
there are other arguments beyond what Baker covered.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 12:23:19 PM |
|
|
Piggyback.
Dionisio mentioned one that might be used (asuming DOMA is repealed or
found to be unconstitutional). There can easily be others. I'm not
arguing on what those others might be - I'll leave that to lawyers
working on gay-rights issues.
Those lawyers aren't offering up any arguments other than what was
established in Baker and FF&C (Dionisio's arguments are
bizarre).
You're welcome.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 12:03:43 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
So, if a state had a DOMA, it will likely prevail an FF&C challenge.
Oddly however, such a DOMA should not allow a state to opt out of
enforcing a divorce settlement of a same-sex couple because that is a
"final judgment" not a public policy.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the legalese to others. That
"final judgment" item is an interesting thing though. If a state were to
craft marriage law which specifically denies divorce -- something the
"Covenant Marriage" crowd wants -- then would that not constitute a
"final judgment"? Thus, working around such state-level DOMAs?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 02:38:14 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
So, if a state had a DOMA, it will likely prevail an FF&C challenge.
Oddly however, such a DOMA should not allow a state to opt out of
enforcing a divorce settlement of a same-sex couple because that is a
"final judgment" not a public policy.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the legalese to others. That
"final judgment" item is an interesting thing though. If a state were to
craft marriage law which specifically denies divorce -- something the
"Covenant Marriage" crowd wants -- then would that not constitute a
"final judgment"? Thus, working around such state-level DOMAs?
I don't think so. The key word isn't final, but rather judgment. A
judgment is rendered by a court that settles a dispute between parties.
Marriage law doesn't do that.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:38:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:20:53 GMT, Dionisio
<moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> wrote:
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
"I can be married here, but not married in Mississippi?!?" The
inter-racial marriage issue would be a precedent.
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 11:27:29 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> writes:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:20:53 GMT, Dionisio
<moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> wrote:
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
"I can be married here, but not married in Mississippi?!?" The
inter-racial marriage issue would be a precedent.
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Free clue: Full Faith and Credit clause is in the Constitution...and there's
been no amendment repealing it.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Peoria 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Opponent/time TBD (Game 1)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 06:26:40 PM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> writes:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 08:15:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> writes:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
No it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 08:45:17 PM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
=20
=20
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r=E2lant.org> writes:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
=20
=20
No it doesn't.
Please explain.
--=20
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************=09
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:07:47 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
No it doesn't.
Explain, with legel citations.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:29:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
No it doesn't.
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:58:23 AM |
|
|
In article <tvl95250luo414n93169gm9l0j8ndo07r0@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
No it doesn't.
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
no, you do not. but you would have appeared credible has you cited
that post's message id.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 12:27:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:58:23 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <tvl95250luo414n93169gm9l0j8ndo07r0@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:40 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Ghods, but you're an idiot. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of
the Land. (Article VI) A mere law passed by Congress cannot trump the
Constitution.
DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates both the 10th and
14th Amendments.
No it doesn't.
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
no, you do not. but you would have appeared credible has you cited
that post's message id.
Your opinion of my credibility means nothing to me. I posted the
information once. That's all that's needed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 08:48:11 AM |
|
|
In article <917b525l82l8hck7ojvv482dathb7i22h3@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:58:23 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
no, you do not. but you would have appeared credible has you cited
that post's message id.
Your opinion of my credibility means nothing to me. I posted the
information once. That's all that's needed.
my guess is that most readers will now conclude you were lying and
that your claim was false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 10:59:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 09:48:11 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <917b525l82l8hck7ojvv482dathb7i22h3@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:58:23 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
no, you do not. but you would have appeared credible has you cited
that post's message id.
Your opinion of my credibility means nothing to me. I posted the
information once. That's all that's needed.
my guess is that most readers will now conclude you were lying and
that your claim was false.
Those who read it when it was posted won't. Now something for your
future reference; You and your opinion are of no consequence to me.
Remember that if you get the 'urge' to respond to another of my posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 09:33:44 AM |
|
|
In article <09md52dj0at821c74qu5bbse2v0v2vam0c@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 09:48:11 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <917b525l82l8hck7ojvv482dathb7i22h3@4ax.com>,
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@r?lant.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:58:23 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
Explain, with legel citations.
I already have in a recent post. I have no obligation to do so again.
no, you do not. but you would have appeared credible has you cited
that post's message id.
Your opinion of my credibility means nothing to me. I posted the
information once. That's all that's needed.
my guess is that most readers will now conclude you were lying and
that your claim was false.
Those who read it when it was posted won't.
those who read your refusal to reference your alleged support of your
allegation will.
Now something for your future reference; You and your opinion are
of no consequence to me.
how odd that you felt obligated to say that, almost as if i am
pulling your strings.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 11:38:12 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
Sort of like how the Jim Crow laws trumped things, right?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
