Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage


 Religions > Atheism > Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 10 of 29

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 

29
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM
Object: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:

:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.

What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme 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.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.

User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 10 Apr 2005 10:28:07 PM
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:00:31 GMT,
drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:00:33 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

Now, can you show any evidence of a legal requirement for fertility in
order to secure a marriage license in the United States? Yes or no.


Yes. I posted it several times. You must have missed it. Too bad.
There are no reruns.


No, you haven't. You are lying.


We shall then leave it to the world to determine who is telling the
truth; You, an atheist, or me. You may keep score if you wish. When
all the rantings of the homosexuals/atheist and other chaff are sifted
out I feel confident of the outcome myself.

My posts are there for the world to see.
Yours? You hid them in desperation. You are a liar, and are unable
to argue your case on facts.
There are no laws in the United States requiring fertility, or even
the intention to raise children, for the issuance of a marriage
license. None. At. All.
I've shown this to be a fact. You haven't made one point to prove
your claim that fertility is required.
You lose.
--
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: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 11 Apr 2005 11:36:18 PM
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Douglas Berry wrote

On 8 Apr 2005 18:58:59 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:a130511u45f8ias0a094m1oi9lm01titae@4ax.com:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag
and drunkenly proclaimed the following


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say
you're dead wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing,
they're both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox
caps. The reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


Heh. A double entendre regarding both gay marriage and the
Sox's World Series victory, eh?


Yup! At the reception, instead of bouquet, they tossed a ball from
one of the games,

I'd recognize the Kallisti handiwork anywhere.
All hail Discordia.
Hail Erisfnord.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier

and all of us fans of teams that haven't won it for
a while got to fight for the thing.

Ended up in wrestling match between me and Cubs fan.

.
User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 12 Apr 2005 10:03:52 AM
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:36:18 -0500, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following

Yup! At the reception, instead of bouquet, they tossed a ball from
one of the games,


I'd recognize the Kallisti handiwork anywhere.

How d'ya say "For the Most Desperate" in Greek?

All hail Discordia.

Hail Erisfnord.

All hail!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 05:47:11 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"

What did the brides wear?
.
User: "Nick J."

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 07:01:42 PM
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman

at

kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in

message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender

marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on

calling them?





What do they call the situation where you demand sex from

a woman

and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


What did the brides wear?

Gay marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, so he was refering to
two guys getting married. In case you didn't realize that, which I
doubt.
Also, I trimmed the extra newsgroups from your header, since excessive
cross-posting is rude. You are welcome.
.

User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 06:42:46 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:47:11 GMT,
drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


What did the brides wear?

No brides, two grooms. Same sex marriage. Michael and Tim.
They are legally married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 09:42:51 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:42:46 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:47:11 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


What did the brides wear?


No brides, two grooms. Same sex marriage. Michael and Tim.

Then they must be address as Mr. Top & Mrs. Bottom

They are legally married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

But not any where outside the boundaries of that leftist liberal cess
pool.
.


User: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 07:48:53 PM
in article tps05192a79rraadqt7e9d9inlikh1c79l@4ax.com,
at
wrote on 4/3/05 6:47 PM:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


What did the brides wear?

Something you'll won't rip off them in a drunken, horny rage...which
pretty much defines "foreplay" for you.
Paul
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 10:12:33 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:48:53 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:

in article tps05192a79rraadqt7e9d9inlikh1c79l@4ax.com,

at
wrote on 4/3/05 6:47 PM:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:32:45 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.


Considering I've been to one last fall, I'd have to say you're dead
wrong.

Told old friends got married in Boston. It's was amusing, they're
both Red Sox fans, so the grooms wore tuxes and Sox caps. The
reception theme was "Pigs are Flying!"


What did the brides wear?




Something you'll won't rip off them in a drunken, horny rage...which
pretty much defines "foreplay" for you.

You're getting way too caught up in this thing, paul. Your fantasies
are beginning to show through what ever it is that you wear when you
get all excited.


Paul

.



User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 09:26:20 AM
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:20:47 -0900, "Dana" <anon@noneya.com> wrote:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.

We already have gay marriages - thousands of them.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.

User: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 02 Apr 2005 08:18:32 PM
in article 114ugcdhuso2q60@corp.supernews.com, Dana at
wrote
on 4/2/05 8:20 PM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


You will still never see gay marriages in your life time.

You'll have to tell that to my cousin...she and the woman she loves
got wed in MA over the Columbus Day weekend.
Paul
.

User: "Sir Marksman"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 02 Apr 2005 06:51:21 PM
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?

Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.
.
User: "Shadow Walker"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 02 Apr 2005 06:56:05 PM
Sir Marksman wrote:

"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?

MARRIAGE!




Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.


.
User: "Sir Marksman"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 06:48:44 AM
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:d2nf45$o6h$3@news.onecall.net...

Sir Marksman wrote:

"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


MARRIAGE!

Not possible.
.


User: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 02 Apr 2005 08:17:18 PM
in article d6H3e.959$uw2.247@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 7:51 PM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.


Then who DO you pay to cook and clean up after you?
Paul
--
.
User: "Sir Marksman"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 06:49:49 AM
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE74BC5E.16505%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article d6H3e.959$uw2.247@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 7:51 PM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.




Then who DO you pay to cook and clean up after you?

No one, Why can't you answer the question?
.
User: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 10:21:17 AM
in article xLQ3e.4867$6a5.2610@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/3/05 7:49 AM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE74BC5E.16505%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article d6H3e.959$uw2.247@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 7:51 PM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.




Then who DO you pay to cook and clean up after you?


No one, Why can't you answer the question?


No one either...I can take care of myself, so I'm don't need to
marry some dumb female to do that for me--or "defend" marriage because I'm
told I will end up losing that privilege.
Paul
.
User: "Sir Marksman"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 12:45:56 PM
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE75822D.16704%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article xLQ3e.4867$6a5.2610@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/3/05 7:49 AM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE74BC5E.16505%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article d6H3e.959$uw2.247@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 7:51 PM:


"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE749BBF.16468%p.duca@comcast.net...

in article 5vF3e.1794$6a5.529@twister.nyroc.rr.com, Sir Marksman at
kurt_lochner@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 6:01 PM:


"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message


The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Since they will not be "marriages" what do you intend on calling
them?




What do they call the situation where you demand sex from a woman
and she insists on money from you?


Never been in that situation so you'll have to tell us all.




Then who DO you pay to cook and clean up after you?


No one, Why can't you answer the question?




No one either...I can take care of myself, so I'm don't need to
marry some dumb female to do that for me--or "defend" marriage because I'm
told I will end up losing that privilege.

Uh huh.
.





User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 04:56:26 AM
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:59:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.

Hold your breath...
.
User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 10:33:54 AM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:56:26 GMT,
drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:59:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Hold your breath...

Trying to off those you can't out-debate? Sorry, but I'm not holding
my breath, am shouting at the top of my lungs.
We're winning, little one.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 05:51:25 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:33:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:56:26 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:59:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Hold your breath...


Trying to off those you can't out-debate? Sorry, but I'm not holding
my breath, am shouting at the top of my lungs.

We're winning, little one.

Here's the little one your winning, *****-wit:
------------------------------------------------------------------
April 3, 2005
AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy
By ANDREW JACOBS
Where have all the condoms gone?
Don't try looking at the Monster, the Hangar, Starlight or Barracuda.
On a recent evening, these and more than a dozen other Manhattan gay
bars were well stocked with free going-out guides, but not a scrap of
literature about H.I.V. prevention or the perils of crystal meth. As
for condoms, the frontline defense against sexually transmitted
diseases, only one establishment stocked them - behind the bar.
As part of his graduate course work at New York University, Michael
Marino set out last winter to compare the AIDS prevention efforts of
New York and London. He was troubled by what he found. At most New
York bars, and even at some bedrock gay and AIDS service institutions,
educational pamphlets and free condoms were hard to find, if not
impossible. In London, Mr. Marino found them easily.
"No wonder things are getting so out of control here," he said.
Condoms, which still can be found in vending machines at a handful of
places, were once given away by the bucketful. While no one believes
free condoms will completely halt the spread of H.I.V., their
disappearance from bars, the equivalent of a town hall for some gay
men, is a telling indicator of how much steam has been lost in the
fight against AIDS.
Although the city health department's recent warning about a rare,
possibly more virulent strain of H.I.V. has caused a stir among gay
men, many AIDS activists hold out little hope the news will prompt
substantial or lasting changes in behavior. They point to the
continued popularity of methamphetamine, which has contributed to a
rise in condomless intercourse, known as barebacking, and the
widespread apathy in which H.I.V. is seen as a nuisance, not a
potential killer.
Compounding this laissez-faire attitude, they complain, are drug
company advertisements that gloss over the disease's effects by
portraying patients as the picture of perfect health.
Locally, at least, the statistics paint a mixed picture. The number of
new H.I.V. infections among men who have sex with men declined
slightly from 2001 to 2003, according to the most recent figures
available, although in much of the country that number has been
rising. But AIDS service providers, pointing to a recent spike in
syphilis cases and the rise of methamphetamine abuse among gay men,
fear it is only a matter of time before New York faces a new surge in
infections.
The challenge is far more complicated than handing bar patrons
informational brochures and telling them to be good, prevention
specialists say.
"Just because folks are well informed doesn't mean they'll necessarily
make the wisest choices in terms of their health," said Dr. Ronald O.
Valdiserri, who oversees AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. "This is true of all humanity, not just gay
men."
The reality that gay men continue to have unprotected sex has been
vexing health experts for 20 years, although the struggle became even
more daunting in the mid-1990's, when a new class of medications
sharply reduced death rates and fed the misconception that AIDS is
only about as troublesome as the flu.
And then there are those who disdain condoms. With the specter of
imminent death gone, the idea of using condoms has become an annoyance
for many. "Let's face it, sex with a condom is not as good," said Dr.
Robert L. Klitzman, a psychiatrist and professor at Columbia
University. "Sex is supposed to be an incredibly intimate moment, and
it's not as intimate when there's a piece of plastic between you and
your partner."
There is a growing sense that the traditional sloganeering about
condoms and club drugs is about as effective as birth-control
campaigns that rely on abstinence. The only hope for changing
behavior, public health experts and psychologists say, is to recognize
and address the underlying factors that propel men into risky
situations. Loneliness, alienation and self-hatred, they say, are the
real culprits that need to be addressed.
But others, describing such talk as naïve, say it makes more sense to
stress personal responsibility. Demonize crystal meth, stigmatize
unprotected sex and remind people that living with H.I.V. can be
grueling, or worse. An important first step, they say, would be to
stop running pharmaceutical ads that portray people with AIDS as
carefree and virile.
Other ideas include following the lead of the San Francisco health
department, which is seeking strict limitations on the availability of
erectile dysfunction drugs that counteract the impotence induced by
crystal meth and encourage the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases.
Many AIDS activists in New York, describing current public service
campaigns as toothless and ineffective, say bus ads and billboards
should remind people that AIDS is a devastating and entirely avoidable
illness.
Many prevention advocates agree that only a creative, ever-changing
arsenal of tactics can reduce the number of new H.I.V. infections.
They point out that it has taken years and millions of dollars to
change public attitudes about tobacco and seat belts, and even now
reasonable people lapse into old ways.
"Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, but we still print those
health warnings on cigarette packs," said Kwame M. Banks, a consultant
specializing in prevention work. "People need to hear these messages
100 times a day. That's the way these things work."
Still, when it comes to H.I.V. and AIDS, some wonder whether it is
time for a new strategy. Perry Halkitis, a psychologist at New York
University who studies the relationship between drug use and sex,
believes that many gay men who engage in risky behavior are grappling
with profound mental health issues.
"People are not taking risks because they're stupid, or because they
wake up one day and say, 'I'm going to take a risk today,' " Dr.
Halkitis said. "They do it because the sexual risk fulfills a need, or
somehow makes them feel better about themselves."
He and others say any successful fight against H.I.V. must deal with
depression, substance abuse and low self-esteem, problems that studies
have shown affect gay men at disproportionately higher rates.
"Many people might argue that as a community, we suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder because we're so ostracized by
society," Dr. Halkitis said. "Being rejected by family, by our
churches, and these days by our government most certainly has an
impact."
That emotional fragility has been compounded by the trauma of the
1980's and early 90's, when sickness and death permeated the lives of
so many. Peter Staley, a veteran AIDS activist, said it was no
coincidence that some of the first people in New York to pick up
crystal meth habits have been men 35 to 45 years old.
"We are the long-term survivors who watched friends die, who never
thought we'd live to have a midlife crisis," said Mr. Staley, who is
H.I.V.-positive and himself a recovering meth addict. "Then the new
medications came along, and suddenly everyone returned to their old
lives and people moved on to other issues, like gays in the military
and gay marriage. Where was the communal processing of the emotional
hell we had just gone through? I think as a result we're a deeply
scarred group."
While such scars can lead to substance abuse, psychologists say the
internalized homophobia and deep-seated feelings of low self-worth are
just as powerful. That is where the allure of crystal meth kicks in.
Those who have used the drug say it tends to blot out feelings of
vulnerability, boosts self-confidence and imbues them with a false
sense of connection to strangers.
Then there are the "bug chasers," H.I.V.-negative men who actively
seek infection. Although such men are thought to be few in number,
mental health experts say the phenomenon reflects the intense
alienation that many gay men feel. Louis Pansulla, a psychoanalyst who
runs gay therapy groups in New York, said younger men, in the
generation that missed the darkest days of the AIDS crisis, believe
that infection will win them membership into a clique, albeit one
coping with a dreaded disease.
"It's almost a longing to belong, even though it's a completely
unconscious thing," he said.
Michelangelo Signorile, the host of a gay-themed talk show on Sirius
Satellite Radio, takes a less nuanced view: "If everyone in your group
is beautiful, taking steroids, barebacking and H.I.V. positive, having
the virus doesn't seem like such a bad thing."
It is for that reason that Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS
Healthcare Foundation, believes the disease is due for an image
makeover. He cites a hard-to-miss ad in last month's Out magazine that
is embedded with a tiny audio chip and features two robust men on a
beach. Opening the magazine sets off the trill of a ringing phone and
a man's voice essentially saying he is having too much fun to worry
about his chronic illness. Mr. Weinstein has asked the ad's sponsor,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, to stop using the ad for the drug, Reyataz. A
spokeswoman said the company was re-examining its advertising
campaigns.
"People are in such denial about how serious H.I.V. is," Mr. Weinstein
said. "Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die."
Of course, frontline prevention workers hope to avoid a new wave of
deaths. At Gay Men's Health Crisis, prevention workers are planning a
series of events that seek to promote "connectedness and community."
Others are creating antidrug messages that masquerade as packets of
meth that can be dropped on dance floors. A series of subway ads
unveiled by the state for the first time shifts responsibility to
those who are already infected.
And then there are people like Daniel Carlson, a former marketing
executive who became so disgusted by the number of men soliciting
unprotected sex online that he and a friend started a group to combat
the prevailing ethos about sex and drugs. In the past two years, the
group, H.I.V. Forum, has organized a half-dozen town hall meetings on
crystal meth and unprotected sex that have drawn packed houses.
"I know it sounds touchy-feely, but if we could just emphasize a
little bit more community and brotherhood," Mr. Carlson said. "We have
to decide whether we're going to be selfish or whether we're going to
care about one another."
.
User: "L. Michael Roberts"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 10:38:35 PM
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:33:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:56:26 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:59:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Hold your breath...


Trying to off those you can't out-debate? Sorry, but I'm not holding
my breath, am shouting at the top of my lungs.

We're winning, little one.


Here's the little one your winning, *****-wit:
------------------------------------------------------------------

April 3, 2005

AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy

By ANDREW JACOBS

Where have all the condoms gone?

Nice attempt to change the subject! I fail to see how same-sex
marriage is related to AIDS other than gays entering into same-sex
marriages are far less likely to become infected with AIDS.
<snip off-topic cut & paste>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 04 Apr 2005 11:59:40 AM
In article <css051918k3nln67s8tr11k22pavg8f3t0@4ax.com>
writes:


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:33:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:56:26 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:59:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

The same will happen to the prohibition on same-gender marriages.


Hold your breath...


Trying to off those you can't out-debate? Sorry, but I'm not holding
my breath, am shouting at the top of my lungs.

We're winning, little one.


Here's the little one your winning, *****-wit:
------------------------------------------------------------------


April 3, 2005

AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy

By ANDREW JACOBS

Where have all the condoms gone?

Don't try looking at the Monster, the Hangar, Starlight or Barracuda.
On a recent evening, these and more than a dozen other Manhattan gay
bars were well stocked with free going-out guides, but not a scrap of
literature about H.I.V. prevention or the perils of crystal meth. As
for condoms, the frontline defense against sexually transmitted
diseases, only one establishment stocked them - behind the bar.

Rampant promiscuity spreads AIDS?
That's the most persuasive of all possible arguments for not only allowing
gay marriage, but for enthusiastically promoting it.
{ 200 further lines of good reasons for gay marriage snipped }
-- cary
.

User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 06:44:38 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:51:25 GMT,
drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

April 3, 2005

AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy

Marriage promotes monogamy, which cuts down on the transmission of
STDs.
So, you support gay marriage as a method of cutting down on AIDS,
right?
Oh, and that's New York. Here in San Francisco, prevention is a big
topic.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 03 Apr 2005 09:45:51 PM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:44:38 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:51:25 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

April 3, 2005

AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy


Marriage promotes monogamy, which cuts down on the transmission of
STDs.

Homosexual males do not understand the concept of monogamy. They have
been demonstrating that FACT for the last 20+ years that they have
been the No.1 vector of AIDS in the United States.

So, you support gay marriage as a method of cutting down on AIDS,
right?

Percentage wise, homosexual males are not marring in those areas that
they are allowed to do so in numbers that would make any difference in
the AIDS data. Most of those marrying are lesbians.

Oh, and that's New York. Here in San Francisco, prevention is a big
topic.

But it's rarely practiced. Just like every where else that homosexuals
stack up.
.





User: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 01 Apr 2005 09:05:27 PM
in article f74r41p38udvtvvhl9jdk2g1hbpillg72o@4ax.com,
at
wrote on 4/1/05 1:20 PM:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:49:30 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:25:04 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:23:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

You stated it was a requirement.


It is in the form that those seeking a license must be male and
female. The set that nature established to assure the continuation of
the species Homosexuals looking for a free ride need not apply.


Yet there is no law in the marriage codes of any of the fifty states
that even mentions fertility as a requirement.

I ask you again, if two 90 year olds get married, do you actually
believe a child is even possible?


If they are male and female the family unit is possible and that
satisfies the state.

What happens if the male can't satisfy the female...will the state
step in to do so?
Paul
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 01 Apr 2005 10:05:17 PM
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:05:27 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:

in article f74r41p38udvtvvhl9jdk2g1hbpillg72o@4ax.com,

at
wrote on 4/1/05 1:20 PM:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:49:30 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:25:04 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:23:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

You stated it was a requirement.


It is in the form that those seeking a license must be male and
female. The set that nature established to assure the continuation of
the species Homosexuals looking for a free ride need not apply.


Yet there is no law in the marriage codes of any of the fifty states
that even mentions fertility as a requirement.

I ask you again, if two 90 year olds get married, do you actually
believe a child is even possible?


If they are male and female the family unit is possible and that
satisfies the state.





What happens if the male can't satisfy the female...will the state
step in to do so?

In what way, paul?



Paul

.


User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage 31 Mar 2005 01:57:35 PM
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:23:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:47:25 GMT,

drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following