| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"GoreRantsForKerry" |
| Date: |
29 May 2004 06:56:43 AM |
| Object: |
Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
"Warren Stupidity" <weaselMark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:q9ugb0hu9i7bgs3gckvhp39su1bc0nhchj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:24:46 GMT, Progressive with an Attitude
<eelder1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Warren Stupidity wrote:
On 28 May 2004 20:06:25 GMT, John Wesley Asquith
<johnasquith6@hotmail.com> wrote:
If that's the case then straight marriage is not a civil right either.
Indeed it isn't. However Equal Protection is. Once you start
irrationally discriminating against one group of people, for example
by arbitrarily denying to one group what is available to another, the
constitution does come into play. If you can persuade the courts that
the discrimination is rational, as for example with affirmative action
programs currently, then such behavior by the state is tolerated. If
you cannot, then as constitutional law stands, governments are barred
from such behavior.
You religious-intolerant types need to separate Holy Matrimony from
state issued marriage licenses. Nobody is going to force your church
to marry them gays. On the other hand, you simply aren't going to ram
your brand of religion down our throats. Take a chill pill. Get over
it. Gays are getting married and civilization didn't crumble.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Read the Constitution. In the Bill of Rights, any rights not spelled out
there are reserverd for the states and the citizens. This isssue has to
be worked out between the states and it Gay citizens.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license issued by the state, like a
drivers license. Equal protection is a recognized constitutional
right. The states indeed can regulate marriage as they see fit,
however if in so doing they violate the constitutional rights of
individuals, the federal courts do have a say in matter.
Where does it say in the Constitution "a man can marry a man"??
I must have missed that paragraph during Civics class....
.
|
|
| User: "Graefaxe" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
29 May 2004 07:54:30 AM |
|
|
"GoreRantsForKerry" <GoreLiesWontSaveHim@dnc.net> opined in
news:%T_tc.29655$zO3.3029@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Marriage is not a right, it is a license issued by the state, like a
drivers license. Equal protection is a recognized constitutional
right. The states indeed can regulate marriage as they see fit,
however if in so doing they violate the constitutional rights of
individuals, the federal courts do have a say in matter.
Where does it say in the Constitution "a man can marry a man"??
I must have missed that paragraph during Civics class....
You missed a lot more than that during civics class.
In my opinion, marriage is a religious institution and, as such, should not
be recognized by the State. The State should only recognize "civil
unions" as being the legal joining of two people to become a single
financial unit. That's all that marriage really is in the eyes of the
government.
Churches could and should decide for themselves if they will sanction the
marriage, but the State should not decide that only one man and one woman
should be allowed to form a partnership. It should be that two people can
form that partnership, for whatever reason they choose. Or, does
everything come down to sex?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
29 May 2004 08:17:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:54:30 -0500, Graefaxe <Graefaxe@notmaixlx.com>
wrote:
Churches could and should decide for themselves if they will sanction the
marriage, but the State should not decide that only one man and one woman
should be allowed to form a partnership. It should be that two people can
form that partnership, for whatever reason they choose. Or, does
everything come down to sex?
I agree wholeheartedly! I love my dog and he loves me (he licks my
face which is PROOF he likes me).
We do have sex but sex is not the only thing we do. It should not be
all about sex.
He wags his tail constantly (a sign of love).
We should be allowed to be married and those morons who say that we
are different species are just specie baiters and haters.
If you hate the species you should eat feces!!!!!
If the state won't let me and my dog marry, I will call the ACLU and
then watch out!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graefaxe" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
29 May 2004 08:54:26 AM |
|
|
"mange@merde.com" <mange@merde.com> opined in
news:u24hb05hshcisejavgvjaip76gmuejvovn@4ax.com:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:54:30 -0500, Graefaxe <Graefaxe@notmaixlx.com>
wrote:
Churches could and should decide for themselves if they will sanction
the marriage, but the State should not decide that only one man and
one woman should be allowed to form a partnership. It should be that
two people can form that partnership, for whatever reason they choose.
Or, does everything come down to sex?
I agree wholeheartedly! I love my dog and he loves me (he licks my
face which is PROOF he likes me).
See. It is possible to love another male.
We do have sex but sex is not the only thing we do. It should not be
all about sex.
Bestiality is against the law in every state, BTW. I wouldn'y make a
big deal out of it, if I were you.
He wags his tail constantly (a sign of love).
And you, I am sure, start drooling at the sight.
We should be allowed to be married and those morons who say that we
are different species are just specie baiters and haters.
Marriage is a church issue, not civil. So, if your church allows it, go
ahead.
If you hate the species you should eat feces!!!!!
Sorry, not interested in your religious practices.
If the state won't let me and my dog marry, I will call the ACLU and
then watch out!!!
Obviously, you missed the part about people. But, hey, who am I to stop
you from marrying your dog. It's probably the brains in the family,
anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Stupidity" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
30 May 2004 02:38:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:54:26 -0500, Graefaxe <Graefaxe@notmaixlx.com>
wrote:
"mange@merde.com" <mange@merde.com> opined in
news:u24hb05hshcisejavgvjaip76gmuejvovn@4ax.com:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:54:30 -0500, Graefaxe <Graefaxe@notmaixlx.com>
wrote:
Churches could and should decide for themselves if they will sanction
the marriage, but the State should not decide that only one man and
one woman should be allowed to form a partnership. It should be that
two people can form that partnership, for whatever reason they choose.
Or, does everything come down to sex?
I agree wholeheartedly! I love my dog and he loves me (he licks my
face which is PROOF he likes me).
See. It is possible to love another male.
We do have sex but sex is not the only thing we do. It should not be
all about sex.
Bestiality is against the law in every state, BTW. I wouldn'y make a
big deal out of it, if I were you.
He wags his tail constantly (a sign of love).
And you, I am sure, start drooling at the sight.
We should be allowed to be married and those morons who say that we
are different species are just specie baiters and haters.
Marriage is a church issue, not civil. So, if your church allows it, go
ahead.
If you hate the species you should eat feces!!!!!
Sorry, not interested in your religious practices.
If the state won't let me and my dog marry, I will call the ACLU and
then watch out!!!
Obviously, you missed the part about people. But, hey, who am I to stop
you from marrying your dog. It's probably the brains in the family,
anyway.
When eatshit can establish that dogs are capable of intelligent
consent and should be granted all rights currently considered *human*
rights, we will reconsider his right to marry his dog. Meanwhile
getting buggered by a dog remains a crime in all 50 states.
I consider eatshit's attempt to divert the argument from equal
protection to the slippery slope of man-dog love an admission of
defeat.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Stupidity" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT" |
30 May 2004 02:42:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:56:43 GMT, "GoreRantsForKerry"
<GoreLiesWontSaveHim@dnc.net> wrote:
"Warren Stupidity" <weaselMark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:q9ugb0hu9i7bgs3gckvhp39su1bc0nhchj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:24:46 GMT, Progressive with an Attitude
<eelder1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Warren Stupidity wrote:
On 28 May 2004 20:06:25 GMT, John Wesley Asquith
<johnasquith6@hotmail.com> wrote:
If that's the case then straight marriage is not a civil right either.
Indeed it isn't. However Equal Protection is. Once you start
irrationally discriminating against one group of people, for example
by arbitrarily denying to one group what is available to another, the
constitution does come into play. If you can persuade the courts that
the discrimination is rational, as for example with affirmative action
programs currently, then such behavior by the state is tolerated. If
you cannot, then as constitutional law stands, governments are barred
from such behavior.
You religious-intolerant types need to separate Holy Matrimony from
state issued marriage licenses. Nobody is going to force your church
to marry them gays. On the other hand, you simply aren't going to ram
your brand of religion down our throats. Take a chill pill. Get over
it. Gays are getting married and civilization didn't crumble.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Read the Constitution. In the Bill of Rights, any rights not spelled out
there are reserverd for the states and the citizens. This isssue has to
be worked out between the states and it Gay citizens.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license issued by the state, like a
drivers license. Equal protection is a recognized constitutional
right. The states indeed can regulate marriage as they see fit,
however if in so doing they violate the constitutional rights of
individuals, the federal courts do have a say in matter.
Where does it say in the Constitution "a man can marry a man"??
I must have missed that paragraph during Civics class....
You obviously missed more than that if indeed you ever took a civics
class that actually covered the constitution. However, I just searched
the constitution, and lo and behold, it doesn't mention marriage at
all anywhere. See my earlier post about why this is an Equal
Protection issue.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A PROBLEM" |
29 May 2004 09:01:24 AM |
|
|
Osama bin Laden and his pals fear homosexuality,
but normal rational people don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: "GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A PROBLEM" |
30 May 2004 11:14:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:33:19 GMT, "Cro" <crow622@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think ...
Actually, when you fear homosexuals, you're irrational.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
