Religions > Bible > Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time!
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill Baker" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2004 07:26:37 AM |
| Object: |
Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
(Washington) The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear a challenge to
the Massachusetts court ruling that opened the door to same-sex marriage.
The decision effectively sidesteps the gay marriage issue. The justices,
as is the tradition of the court, did not give a reason for declining to
hear the case.
The court had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old
decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage.
The Florida-based Liberty Counsel said in its brief to the court that the
US Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their
own state supreme court's usurpation of power."
The suit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the
Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
In a brief filed by the city of Boston in opposition to Liberty Counsel
attorney Merita Hopkins argued that Liberty Counsel had not shown they
suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can
overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.
It was the second setback for Liberty Counsel which had earlier asked to
court to block the the state from beginning gay marriages. In May the
group asked the court to intervene and block clerks from issuing marriage
licenses to gay couples in Massachusetts.(story)
Liberty Counsel is involved in a number of challenges in other states to
laws granting rights to same-sex couples.
After the Supreme Court decided in May not to become involved in the gay
marriage issue some 3,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts.
Lambda Legal said it was not surprised by today's decision not to take up
the case.
"This was a weak and misguided legal effort from right-wing antigay groups
that never really stood much chance of being heard at the Supreme Court,"
David Buckel, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director said.
Today's decision does not end the gay marriage issue for the high court.
Legal challenges to bans on same-sex marriage are underway in a number of
states and it is considered likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately
wrap the case together.
A weekend poll shows that most Americans still disapprove of same-sex
marriage. The Associated Press survey found that by a margin of 61
percent to 35 percent, people thought marriage should be restricted to a
man and a woman. However, young adults between 18 and 29 were about evenly
split.
Recent polls have indicated people are about evenly divided on the
question of civil unions, which would provide many of the same legal
protections as gay marriage.
"It's a welcome action but not unexpected because the Goodrich
[Massachusetts marriage] decision was based 100 percent on the
Massachusetts state constitution not the US Constitution. Therefore it
would have been inappropriate and a violation of federalism for the US
Supreme court to have gotten involved," Matt Foreman, the executive
director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told 365Gay.com.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #2:
"I've seen Shakespeare in heaven. He prefers the company of Southerners on
account of we speak the same language."
.
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
04 Dec 2004 11:34:15 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Let's see you try.
How is it that any woman can actually support some law that denies
her the right of control over her own body?
Teresita is a woman, right?
Yes.
How is it that she seems to support anti-woman-rights if she's
actually a real woman? I don't get it...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
04 Dec 2004 02:56:33 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:q6t3r09i1ve8p06pnklaq3flvjbjr7ghse@4ax.com...
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Let's see you try.
How is it that any woman can actually support some law that denies
her the right of control over her own body?
Teresita is a woman, right?
Yes.
How is it that she seems to support anti-woman-rights if she's
actually a real woman? I don't get it...
Cult brainwashing is quite powerful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
05 Dec 2004 04:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:56:33 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:q6t3r09i1ve8p06pnklaq3flvjbjr7ghse@4ax.com...
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Let's see you try.
How is it that any woman can actually support some law that denies
her the right of control over her own body?
Teresita is a woman, right?
Yes.
How is it that she seems to support anti-woman-rights if she's
actually a real woman? I don't get it...
Cult brainwashing is quite powerful.
Plus,,she's a masochistic ... oopps, I misspelled "Catholic" once
again..... skank.
Happy Hanukkah to two of my favorite guys --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 07:51:40 PM |
|
|
In article <5pp5r0pa6iic8m5f9l7jf9virpr6prsg51@4ax.com>, Bonnie B. says...
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:56:33 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:q6t3r09i1ve8p06pnklaq3flvjbjr7ghse@4ax.com...
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Let's see you try.
How is it that any woman can actually support some law that denies
her the right of control over her own body?
Teresita is a woman, right?
Yes.
How is it that she seems to support anti-woman-rights if she's
actually a real woman? I don't get it...
Cult brainwashing is quite powerful.
Plus,,she's a masochistic ... oopps, I misspelled "Catholic" once
again..... skank.
So on alt.atheism, Colin Powell isn't really black because he isn't liberal.
Alberto Gonzales isn't really hispanic because he isn't liberal. Condi Rice
isn't really black OR female because she isn't liberal.
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
07 Dec 2004 07:31:20 AM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2004 17:51:40 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
So on alt.atheism, Colin Powell isn't really black because he isn't liberal.
No, only in your imagination, toots.
And you're still a masochist, on so many levels.
Happy Hanukkah/Merry Ramadan --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
03 Dec 2004 12:53:41 PM |
|
|
"Teresita" <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
news:je31r0lm426md9cg7e1pklo2argekmihr3@4ax.com...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Got a mouse in your pocket?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
04 Dec 2004 11:24:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:01:57 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com>
wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Then may you become the mindless brood mare your superstition orders-
squirting out rug rat after rug rat until you die in the religious
ecstacy of unmedicated childbirth.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
03 Dec 2004 01:12:12 PM |
|
|
Teresita wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Thanks for proving his point!
--
+==================== 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: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
03 Dec 2004 09:07:58 PM |
|
|
In article <eU2sd.85623$vO1.497400@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, L. Michael Roberts says...
Teresita wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Thanks for proving his point!
The point must have flow right over your head. Roe v. Wade represented a
usurpation by the federal court of the several State's rights to define their
own abortion policies.
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 09:28:45 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2004 19:07:58 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
In article <eU2sd.85623$vO1.497400@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, L. Michael Roberts says...
Teresita wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Thanks for proving his point!
The point must have flow right over your head. Roe v. Wade represented a
usurpation by the federal court of the several State's rights to define their
own abortion policies.
This point must have flown right over YOUR head: The Supreme Court
of the USA is a separate and EQUAL branch of the U.S. government.
Even States are not allowed to ignore the U.S. Constitution.
For some reason, anytime a court rules in a way that goes against the
Right, they start screaming about "usurpation" and "activism" when, in
reality, the Court System is one of three branches of our government.
It's called "checks and balances" even if it goes against a group's
personal bigotries and articles of FAITH..
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 11:11:41 AM |
|
|
In article <d7u8r0drn5tkue04bbs2e4ffk77j6vp30r@4ax.com>, RainLover says...
On 3 Dec 2004 19:07:58 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
In article <eU2sd.85623$vO1.497400@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, L. Michael Roberts says...
Teresita wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Thanks for proving his point!
The point must have flow right over your head. Roe v. Wade represented a
usurpation by the federal court of the several State's rights to define their
own abortion policies.
This point must have flown right over YOUR head: The Supreme Court
of the USA is a separate and EQUAL branch of the U.S. government.
Even States are not allowed to ignore the U.S. Constitution.
Granted. So let me state in another way the post that started this sub-thread:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie BItch" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 12:57:34 PM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2004 09:11:41 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
Then you should change political parties, Miss "Let's Repeal Roe And
Force All The States To Have My Law The Way I Want It."
Happy Hanukkah, masochist
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 01:03:12 PM |
|
|
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On 6 Dec 2004 09:11:41 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
Then you should change political parties, Miss "Let's Repeal Roe And
Force All The States To Have My Law The Way I Want It."
I always wanted to ask John Kerry and Howard Dean why they wanted to
leave same-sex marriage up to the states (or so they said); but they
insisted on preserving Roe v. Wade so that abortion would not be left up
to the states.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, whether you're in favor of
same-sex marriage or not, it seems inconsistent to me to advocate
leaving one of these issues up to the states while insisting that the
U.S. Supreme Court must deal with the other issue.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 03:12:45 PM |
|
|
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:Q12td.7112$Va5.2406@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On 6 Dec 2004 09:11:41 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
Then you should change political parties, Miss "Let's Repeal Roe And
Force All The States To Have My Law The Way I Want It."
I always wanted to ask John Kerry and Howard Dean why they wanted to leave
same-sex marriage up to the states (or so they said); but they insisted on
preserving Roe v. Wade so that abortion would not be left up to the
states.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, whether you're in favor of same-sex
marriage or not, it seems inconsistent to me to advocate leaving one of
these issues up to the states while insisting that the U.S. Supreme Court
must deal with the other issue.
IIRC, it was conservative Republicans who were shrieking about the need for
a penis-vagina, er, Federal Marriage Amendment.
The USSC will eventually deal with same-sex marriage. It's only a matter of
time before a same-sex couple who are legally married in one state move to a
state that bans same-sex marriage and challenge that ban. That's precisely
how sixteen states' bans on inter-racial marriage were overturned in 1967.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 05:48:20 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"Steven Litvintchouk" < > wrote in message
news:Q12td.7112$Va5.2406@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On 6 Dec 2004 09:11:41 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
Then you should change political parties, Miss "Let's Repeal Roe And
Force All The States To Have My Law The Way I Want It."
I always wanted to ask John Kerry and Howard Dean why they wanted to leave
same-sex marriage up to the states (or so they said); but they insisted on
preserving Roe v. Wade so that abortion would not be left up to the
states.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, whether you're in favor of same-sex
marriage or not, it seems inconsistent to me to advocate leaving one of
these issues up to the states while insisting that the U.S. Supreme Court
must deal with the other issue.
IIRC, it was conservative Republicans who were shrieking about the need for
a penis-vagina, er, Federal Marriage Amendment.
It was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
And in the 2004 campaign, Clinton had advised Kerry to endorse the state
ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriage. Kerry refused.
The USSC will eventually deal with same-sex marriage. It's only a matter of
time before a same-sex couple who are legally married in one state move to a
state that bans same-sex marriage and challenge that ban. That's precisely
how sixteen states' bans on inter-racial marriage were overturned in 1967.
The difference is that in 1967, the USSC under Chief Justice Earl Warren
was the most liberal in U.S. history.
You're not going to see a liberal Supreme Court like that again.
The reason why gays and lesbians went along with Kerry saying that gay
marriage should be left up to the states, was that they were sure that
Kerry would appoint liberal justices to the USSC who would legalize gay
marriage across the country.
Bush won instead.
And this little scheme of the liberals has now collapsed.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 09:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:8d6td.7279$Va5.4506@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
[snip]
The USSC will eventually deal with same-sex marriage. It's only a matter
of time before a same-sex couple who are legally married in one state
move to a state that bans same-sex marriage and challenge that ban.
That's precisely how sixteen states' bans on inter-racial marriage were
overturned in 1967.
The difference is that in 1967, the USSC under Chief Justice Earl Warren
was the most liberal in U.S. history.
You're not going to see a liberal Supreme Court like that again.
Gee, it's too bad that you're still holding a grudge about that decision.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 05:55:34 PM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
The USSC will eventually deal with same-sex marriage. It's only a
matter of time before a same-sex couple who are legally married in one
state move to a state that bans same-sex marriage and challenge that
ban. That's precisely how sixteen states' bans on inter-racial
marriage were overturned in 1967.
The difference is that in 1967, the USSC under Chief Justice Earl Warren
was the most liberal in U.S. history.
You're not going to see a liberal Supreme Court like that again.
Given your negative tone concerning liberals, do you think The Court
erred when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie BItch" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 05:43:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:12:45 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
IIRC, it was conservative Republicans who were shrieking about the need for
a penis-vagina, er, Federal Marriage Amendment.
Let's just call it what it is:
The RepubliCUNT Civil Rights Cafeteria Special.
Happy Hanukkah,
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 07:57:44 PM |
|
|
In article <Q12td.7112$Va5.2406@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
Litvintchouk says...
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, whether you're in favor of
same-sex marriage or not, it seems inconsistent to me to advocate
leaving one of these issues up to the states while insisting that the
U.S. Supreme Court must deal with the other issue.
It's quite clear to any rational mind what is going on. When liberals
controlled the Federal government in the 1970's, Roe v. Wade's usurpation of 50
state laws on abortion was good and right. When liberals lost control of the
Federal government in the 2000's, leaving the issue of gay marriage up to the 50
states is good and right.
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie BItch" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
06 Dec 2004 05:42:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:03:12 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On 6 Dec 2004 09:11:41 -0800, Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far left just can't stand
states rights now that they are no longer in charge of the federal
government.
Then you should change political parties, Miss "Let's Repeal Roe And
Force All The States To Have My Law The Way I Want It."
I always wanted to ask John Kerry and Howard Dean why they wanted to
leave same-sex marriage up to the states (or so they said); but they
insisted on preserving Roe v. Wade so that abortion would not be left up
to the states.
Forgetting for a moment that marriage and the right to privacy are
both civil rights....
<pause while people who think snort some coke to aid with that>
your state can simply refuse to perform abortions or marry same-sex
couples.
Problem solved.
Of course, your state can't prosecute women who have had abortions in
other states <group AWWWWW>, and thanks to that pesky Article 4,
section 1 of the Constitution, your state would have to recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states <big group WAHHHHH>.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, whether you're in favor of
same-sex marriage or not, it seems inconsistent to me to advocate
leaving one of these issues up to the states while insisting that the
U.S. Supreme Court must deal with the other issue.
Well, toots,. when you decide to put YOUR marriage (or any of your
other civil rights) up for a vote, gimme a call.
Happy Hanukkah,
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris the Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
05 Dec 2004 08:54:29 PM |
|
|
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message news:<cor9me0u2n@drn.newsguy.com>...
In article <eU2sd.85623$vO1.497400@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, L. Michael Roberts says...
Teresita wrote:
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, (Ashland
Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Thanks for proving his point!
The point must have flow right over your head. Roe v. Wade represented a
usurpation by the federal court of the several State's rights to define their
own abortion policies.
Miss T forgets that abortion was not an issue in the 1800s.
That was because then priests preferred little girls to little boys.........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
04 Dec 2004 12:17:29 AM |
|
|
Teresita wrote:
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
Let's see if you still say that after we reverse Roe v Wade.
Um, dear, you prove his point.
--
Thank you for your interest in HoroscopesForTheParanoid.com.
You selected, "Tell me my immediate future," as your free trial horoscope.
We see the following:
"Today you will have the eerie sensation that either you are going crazy or you are being watched by something indescribably evil. Luckily for you, you're in fine shape, mentally."
This glimpse into the future has been brought to you free of charge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
30 Nov 2004 12:49:09 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
30 Nov 2004 03:56:00 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hsfpq0lkrv5l8qce78qa2v16bervh2h4g3@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
It seems to me that you don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry but what I said is that it is interesting to watch the
far right flip flop on issues like states rights. It's interesting
to watch the far left do the same thing, mind you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
30 Nov 2004 10:39:45 PM |
|
|
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
More of the same: "For a modest fee, we will 'protect' you from the
'unfortunate consequences' that may result from failure to 'invest' in
our vision -- not to mention yours -- of seeing that some things simply
don't happen. And wouldn't it be terrible if, for some strange reason,
you weren't to 'voluntarily' support our efforts and the 'unthinkable'
happened?"
But it's not as though some folks are "making a racket" or anything...
--
Thank you for your interest in HoroscopesForTheParanoid.com.
You selected, "Tell me my immediate future," as your free trial horoscope.
We see the following:
"Today you will have the eerie sensation that either you are going crazy or you are being watched by something indescribably evil. Luckily for you, you're in fine shape, mentally."
This glimpse into the future has been brought to you free of charge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
30 Nov 2004 06:44:00 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2004 13:56:00 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hsfpq0lkrv5l8qce78qa2v16bervh2h4g3@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
Gay sex without marriage, just like we have now.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
It seems to me that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's because you disagree with a ban on gay marriage.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
01 Dec 2004 08:01:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:44:00 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> cross posted to
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.bush:
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
Gay sex without marriage, just like we have now.
Strange. I would have thought a man like you would ABHOR any kind of
sex outside wedlock...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
01 Dec 2004 12:26:29 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2t4qq05b88te5nfhop9s1jmgrchdulji42@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 13:56:00 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hsfpq0lkrv5l8qce78qa2v16bervh2h4g3@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
Gay sex without marriage, just like we have now.
It's never as simple and without ramifications as the zealots think.
I'm pretty confident that Volstag thought prohibition would be good
for the country and morality as well. He was wrong. I don't doubt that
you are wrong as well.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
It seems to me that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's because you disagree with a ban on gay marriage.
It's not an unadulterated good to have gay marriage but it is definately
a bad thing to enshrine bigotry and prohibitions in our constitution.
Your view is far to simplistic but then that's how zealots think.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
04 Dec 2004 07:06:57 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2t4qq05b88te5nfhop9s1jmgrchdulji42@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 13:56:00 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hsfpq0lkrv5l8qce78qa2v16bervh2h4g3@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
Umm No. What I'm saying is that the results of banning something
in the constitution may not be what you think. The last time
we got organized crime. Who knows what we might get this time.
Gay sex without marriage, just like we have now.
No Dave, that's the obvious answer. The real answer is something
no one alive today can predict.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
It seems to me that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's because you disagree with a ban on gay marriage.
Incorrect. I do disagree with such a ban but my basic issue is that
putting bans in the constitution is a bad idea.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Smiley" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage here to stay - Neocons LOSE big time! |
30 Nov 2004 01:09:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave said: "that you are of the opinion that only what you agree with
is correct and no one else should have a say.."
I don't think he said that at all. I think he was pointing to the fact that
the RRR seem to now be encroaching into areas that have been (and still are)
states' rights issues.
How could you possibly construe his post means that you should be silenced?
Indeed, your religious views have no place in U.S. government, and certainly
not in the constitution, but you should still be free to run your mouth all
you want.
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hsfpq0lkrv5l8qce78qa2v16bervh2h4g3@4ax.com...
On 30 Nov 2004 09:43:43 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Ashland Henderson)
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<s26pq0di305pfkqoimfdtse1apvt4gmq5a@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:37 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
pontificated:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112904supremeMarr.htm
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Case
Which will give cause to support a Constitutional
Amendment.
Well last time we passed an amendment banning something
in the constitution it's major effect was to create
organized crime. I wonder what we'd get this time? It
certainly won't be morality and it almost certainly
won't be good but we'll see.
So then you're saying that gay sex is a crime? It
seems to me, that it wouldn't be any different. Gays
have sex without marriage now.
I do find it interesting that the far right just can't stand
states rights now that they are in charge of the federal
government.
It seems to me, that you are of the opinion that only
what you agree with is correct and no one else should
have a say..
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
