Ballot to ban gay marriage debated

[y***@aol.com]

There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?







http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/


In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.

A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.

The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.

But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.

The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.

A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.

Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.

[Attila]

On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:54:28 -0400, <***@aol.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<5fWdneXKScTzzcPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-***@giganews.com> wrote:

Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.

[james g. keegan jr.]

Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.

do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you
do? even osprey has legitimately commented on your hypocrisy.

your hypocrisy aside, what you might want to do to make yourself feel
like an even bigger asshole is take a random sample of posts you've
whined about and then search google for the number of posts with this
topic, demonstrating that readers know what is of interest to them
far better than you do.

[Douglas Berry]

What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
<***@gmail.com> posting the following on Sun, 07 May 2006
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?

Post by james g. keegan jr.

Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.

Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.

Killfile him and move on already!

[james g. keegan jr.]

Post by Douglas Berry
What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?

Post by james g. keegan jr.

Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.

Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.
Killfile him and move on already!

actually, i reply to him *only* in the cases like the one shown above
where he demonstrates his continued ignorance of usenet and
disrespect for the judgement of readers.

it amuses me to see threads he tries to kill with hundreds of
follow-ups and sub-discussions.

plus he is old and apparently a bit senile so a bit of repetition if
probably good for him.

[robpar]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:20:44 GMT, Douglas Berry

Post by Douglas Berry
What's so funny about peace, love and "james g. keegan jr."
20:13:20 -0400 iin alt.atheism?

Post by james g. keegan jr.

Post by Attila
alt.abortion with message-id
Another off-topic post from one of the usual sources.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.

Y'know, I've had Attila killfiled for months. The only reason I see
his posts is because *you* keep replying to him.
Killfile him and move on already!

I've kill filed both of them, but you just had to reply. Ignore
them. Then I will not have to kill file you.

[Natalie Clifford Barney]

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...I am sure that you are familiar with this
Jon......

Post by y***@aol.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/
In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.
A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.
The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.
But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.
The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.
A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.
Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.
--
----------
J Young

--
Natalie Clifford Barney
Cumann Na mBan-1916
Membre; L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....

"If too little of the love I invoke appears in this book, it is because I have better spent it elsewhere.
Here there remain only fragments."

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.

[Mark Sebree]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.

Which means that there should be no problem with homosexual marriage,
since it does not affect the majority at all, and simply extends rights
that the majority has to a minority group that is currently being
denied those rights unfairly.

If you want to claim that homosexual marriage is at the expense of
heterosexual marriage, or that it affects heterosexual marriage at all,
then you need to explain exactly how heterosexual marriage is affected.
Especially since there is no evdience of this.

The only "perverted minority" that seems to have a problem with
homosexual marriage is the homophobics that do not want homosexuals to
have any rights at all, in direct contradiction of the U.S.
Constitution.

Mark Sebree

[newsguy]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.

Like you blacks wanting to marry white women?

[Natalie Clifford Barney]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.

Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
I already hold my lover's hand in the best restauraunts, kiss gher gently in public
and show the same amount of tenderness and attention that a straight couple would.



--
Natalie Clifford Barney
Cumann Na mBan-1916
Membre; L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....

"If too little of the love I invoke appears in this book, it is because I have
better spent it elsewhere. Here there remain only fragments."

[Richard Burns]

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by Natalie Clifford Barney

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Human rights ought not be at the whim of a majority...

and they should NEVER be at the whim of a perverted minority at the
expense of the majority.

Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
The thought of sexual intercourse with a man makes me viscerally nauseous.
Further, how does my getting married affect you at all?
I already hold my lover's hand in the best restauraunts, kiss gher gently in public
and show the same amount of tenderness and attention that a straight couple would.

The evangeical crowd is a pretty bored bunch....you get bored
staring at all the same megachurches, Wal-Marts, tract houses &
TBN all the time.

Richard.

[Roedy Green]

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?

These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Previously, on alt.atheism, Roedy Green in episode

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and
decided by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

We could go back to the good old Catholic hating days of the US. I mean,
things like forced sterilization wouldn't interfere with their "free
exercise" of religion right? I mean, since the reich wing wants to get all
hyper-literal about the 1st Amendment and squawk "there's no wall in
there!" Well I don't see anything about letting a foreign nation (the
Vatican) own property in the US so let's seize anything they don't need to
do their basic ritual things with. Oh and we need loyalty oaths so they
can't hold public office because of their allegiance to a foreign
government.

None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!

Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."

So, from now on, attending any Protestant church of your choice *is
religious freedom. Wanting to have that Vatican run stuff is a *special
right. And Protestants founded this country and are in the majority so no
more of these minority cults pushing their agenda on us!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

[Roedy Green]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."

That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."

On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.

The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.

see http://mindprod.com/ggloss/gaymarriage.html

[newsguy]

Post by Roedy Green
On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."

That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."
On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.
The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.

They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.


Just like with Hitler and homosexuals.

[Alberich]

Post by newsguy

Post by Roedy Green
On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:01:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
None of this would get in the way of practicing their religion after all!
Or let's take a cue from the anti-marriage folks. The part about gays have
the same right as anyone else to marry any member of the opposite sex and
marrying someone of the same sex is a "special right."

That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's spoof of Bush saying words to the
effect "I support the right of every Christian, Jew, Muslim and
Buddhist to take whatever path he wants to accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal saviour."
On the issue of gay marriage I say, What business is it of yours how I
set up my domestic arrangement? It has no effect on you whatsoever. It
is not as though I am forcing you to come to the wedding. With your
attitude chances are you will NEVER get an invitation to a wedding or
even a gay household.
The religious right then counter with some comments about gays being
promiscuous. I ask, then why are you so opposed to marriage -- a
pledge of fidelity? You seem to be trying to promote promiscuity.

They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.

Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement? The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?

Alberich

[Dionisio]

Post by Alberich
Marriage cures AIDS?

Yep. Ryan White would be alive today if he'd just have gotten married.

;-)

[f***@verizon.net]

Post by Alberich

Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.

Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?

As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?

Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?

The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.

Susan

[Alberich]

Post by f***@verizon.net

Post by Alberich

Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.

Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?

As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?

Heterosexuals are to blame for homosexuals not honoring commitments to
one another?

Post by f***@verizon.net

Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?

The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.

You can call it what you will, but that doesn't answer my underlying
question, does it?

Alberich

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Post by f***@verizon.net

Post by Alberich

Post by newsguy
They squawk and moan about AIDS, then will not allow the one thing
that could reduce the numbers. Just like Ronald Reagan, they do not
want to cure AIDS, they want AIDS to cure homosexuality.

Marriage cures AIDS? Do you mean to say that homosexuals haven't the
self-control to stay monogamous without a government endorsement?

As opposed to hets who are as much to blame for the problem?

Post by Alberich
The
pledges that they make to one another independently carry no weight?
Or has the idea to try such a course simply not crossed their minds?

The same way it hasn't crossed your mind that your stance is hypocritical.

Yours is denial based on stupidity.

Post by f***@verizon.net
Susan

[Bush Lied, The Planet Died]

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?

WORKS FOR ME!

[Fester]

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

[a***@home.com]

Post by Fester

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.


***@home#1554

[Fester]

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime, loving
partner. It does not allow a gay person to do likewise. You may call
that equality. I don't.

Josh Rosenbluth

[Jeff North]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:42:40 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality Josh

| >
| > The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
| > provides equality for all.
|
| That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
| unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime, loving
| partner.

Britney Spears and her 55hour marriage is a fine example of what
marriage is all about <ducking>

| It does not allow a gay person to do likewise. You may call
| that equality. I don't.
|
| Josh Rosenbluth

---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Jeff North
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:42:40 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality Josh

| >
| > The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
| > woman provides equality for all.
|
| That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
| unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime,
| loving partner.

Britney Spears and her 55hour marriage is a fine example of what
marriage is all about <ducking>

Don't forget those paragons of family values Newt
Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani.

Apparently adultery is a "stain on the marriage
institution", but only when Democrats do it.

[Jeff North]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 09:23:25 -0500, in alt.politics.homosexuality

|
| > On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:42:40 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality Josh
| >
| >>| >
| >>| > The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
| >>| > woman provides equality for all.
| >>|
| >>| That definition allows a straight person to marry the sole, otherwise
| >>| unmarried, adult, unrelated person they choose as their lifetime,
| >>| loving partner.
| >
| > Britney Spears and her 55hour marriage is a fine example of what
| > marriage is all about <ducking>
| >
|
|
| Don't forget those paragons of family values Newt
| Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani.

But they lead by example - of what NOT to do :-)

| Apparently adultery is a "stain on the marriage
| institution", but only when Democrats do it.

You might be onto something there :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------

[L. Michael Roberts]

<snip>

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's look
at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed that
the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
Their view of equality looked like this:

| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------

This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not. The SCOTUS then
said that if races were to be treated equally, the chart would like like
this:

| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------

Now you are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally
in the marriage contract. A man may not marry another man just as a
woman my not marry another women thus you claim the sexes are treated
equally. Lets take a look at that in chart form:

| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| NO | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | NO | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------

Discrimination based on sex [gender] is outlawed just like
discrimination based on race. In order for the sexes to be treated
equally, there must not be any NO boxes on the chart:

| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------

So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by L. Michael Roberts

Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
woman provides equality for all.

Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's
look at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed
that the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not.

Of course Fester is wrong, but SCOTUS did not rule that a "NO"
automatically implied the races were being treated unequally.

Virginia argued that the above set of YES and NO cells automatically
implied the races were being treated equally. SCOTUS ruled that such an
automatic conclusion of equality is invalidated by a "NO". However, the
determination of whether or not there was equal treatment had to based
on other considerations beyond this matrix.

Josh Rosenbluth

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Facts

In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on
the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated
their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to
issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically
directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically
ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions
"does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution".


Opinion of the court

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that
a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not
applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the
right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction
based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference
in sex".


Review by the United States Supreme Court

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistant with binding precedent. "[Summary Decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. [L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

]
Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such, Baker establishes that a
State's decision to define marriage in whatever manner the state
desires does not offend the United States Constitution.


Subsequent history


Lockyer v. San Francisco

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
“for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until
the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S.
at p. 344.)That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)


Wilson v. Ake

Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court—which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.

In re Kandu

By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court.


Hernandez v Robles

The intermediate appellate Court in the State of New York also noted
the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the
controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection
claims on this issue.

Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.


***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in
Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to
support homosexuality.

August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the
suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over
conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.

The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly
authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws
proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech
and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of
the law journal. The article is currently only available through
fee-based database services.

Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing
criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing
discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly
to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ...
achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping
terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections
for speech and religious freedoms."

Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high
school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on
homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has
chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of
Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.

After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for
publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions
several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks
against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands,
Denmark, and others.

However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand
against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used
"hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior
from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.

In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay
legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation"
to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.

Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out
against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to
be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the
law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own
publications."

According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be
protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for
speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.

In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free
speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an
individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also
listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as
reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.

Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it
favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court
also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of
gays.

Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to
such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument
relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or
unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This
claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have
attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."

The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have
commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for
homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular
phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into
behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the
influence of the environment."

Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a
genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased
acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.

He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that
suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical
conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It
reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish
truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and
even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in
the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."

[L. Michael Roberts]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

You keep posting this article... which we have all read... yet you fail
to answer the most important question because you know that the article
is based on a lie.
The important question is, where exactly in the Criminal Code of Canada
is the section which criminalises speech critical of homosexuality and
which suppresses "..free speech and religion in order to support
homosexuality"?? [The Criminal Code of Canada is available on the
Department of Justice web site at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html so you can look up and cite
the relevant section]
Until you can provide some proof - an article from some religionist who
has an axe to grind is *not* proof - you are a cowardly American idiot
who should keep his shit stained homophobic nose out of the business of
other countries.!

<snip>

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 08:12:22 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

You keep posting this article... which we have all read... yet you fail
to answer the most important question because you know that the article
is based on a lie.

You are based in lying. The article is the narration of actual
experience -- you are a dyed in the wool fanatic who employed the
teachings of the BIG BOOK of HOMOSEXULA DOGMA (BBHD)
to Lie, Deny and Suppress the Truth about homosexuality.

[Dionisio]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.
***
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada

Bwahahahaha!!!

I encased my irony meter in 10 feet of lead. Nyah, nyah, nyah!

[L. Michael Roberts]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:06:55 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you
have not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

Your rant is pure BULL SHIT and you have not fully considered that you
are a cowardly canadian idiot who should keep his shit stained
homophilic nose out of the business of other countries.

Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

<snip unproven propaganda>

[Not PC]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

We don't give a shit what you do. You are not a player in the big
picture. Your pathetic LACK of an armed force puts you on about a par
with Mexico. Just hope the frogs don't rise up and divide your
pathetic excuse of a "country".

[Boy Toy]

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

We don't give a shit what you do. You are not a player in the big
picture. Your pathetic LACK of an armed force puts you on about a par
with Mexico. Just hope the frogs don't rise up and divide your
pathetic excuse of a "country".

You do not speak for a majority of Americans. You don't even speak
for the 29% fundie redneck vote. You and your misinformed opinions
are irrelevant. LOL!

[b***@râlant.org]

Post by Boy Toy

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

We don't give a shit what you do. You are not a player in the big
picture. Your pathetic LACK of an armed force puts you on about a par
with Mexico. Just hope the frogs don't rise up and divide your
pathetic excuse of a "country".

You do not speak for a majority of Americans. You don't even speak
for the 29% fundie redneck vote. You and your misinformed opinions
are irrelevant. LOL!

You don't speak for ANY AMERICANS. Mind you own 3rd world business.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by b***@râlant.org

Post by Boy Toy

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

We don't give a shit what you do. You are not a player in the big
picture. Your pathetic LACK of an armed force puts you on about a par
with Mexico. Just hope the frogs don't rise up and divide your
pathetic excuse of a "country".

You do not speak for a majority of Americans. You don't even speak
for the 29% fundie redneck vote. You and your misinformed opinions
are irrelevant. LOL!

You don't speak for ANY AMERICANS. Mind you own 3rd world business.

How would YOU know, $3 Bill? (Nice of you to morph so much, but that's about
all you crackhead cranks know what to do.)

[Boy Toy]

Post by b***@râlant.org

Post by Boy Toy

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business of
other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose into
Canadian business? Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy?

We don't give a shit what you do. You are not a player in the big
picture. Your pathetic LACK of an armed force puts you on about a par
with Mexico. Just hope the frogs don't rise up and divide your
pathetic excuse of a "country".

You do not speak for a majority of Americans. You don't even speak
for the 29% fundie redneck vote. You and your misinformed opinions
are irrelevant. LOL!

You don't speak for ANY AMERICANS. Mind you own 3rd world business.

I speak for more Americans than you will ever do. Go back with the
rest of the fundie NeoCon 29%-crowd in your third world trailer parks,

[Emmanual Kann]

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Can you explain to me why I should keep my nose out of the business
of other countries... while you, an American, are sticking your nose
into Canadian business?

I speak for more Americans than you will ever do. Go back with the rest
of the fundie NeoCon 29%-crowd in your third world trailer parks,

Speaking of Canadians and trailer parks, how many of you have seen Trailer
Park Boy's? It is one of the best TV shows in the world currently under
production. HBO has some good dramas, but in the comedy arena, Canadian
TV rocks.

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy

And you better be listening or we'll close the border and you'll
starve to death.

[L. Michael Roberts]

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy

And you better be listening or we'll close the border and you'll
starve to death.

Go right ahead and close the border... thereby loosing the 40% of the
US oil supply that is imported from Canada, the tons of lumber we export
for building US houses, the corn, beef, chicken, pork and beer you
import from us, the water we ship south, the uranium, gold, and
diamonds, the digital switching technology and satellite technology you
get from us, and loosing the privilege of using our antic for cold
weather training of your forces...
Oh and we will want our Canada-arms back from your shuttles which will
put a dent in your space program and prevent the completion of the ISS.

[p***@comcast.net]

From: <***@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ballot to ban gay marriage debated
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
User-Agent: OSXnews 2.08
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <5fWdneXKScTzzcPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-***@giganews.com> <***@4ax.com> <yR89g.107$***@tornado.southeast.rr.com> <***@4ax.com> <Cp7bg.1327$***@tornado.southeast.rr.com> <***@golden.net> <***@4ax.com> <ooCdnd-EE-***@golden.net> <***@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <***@comcast.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:27:45 -0500
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.168.246
X-Trace: sv3-sL1RqGE1FK15CNNT0r1xcoQKw3zEeiGeXG5dTkzRDvS/tyx4iyYm9op+qDZj0JAvCSC/EF0QuY5zT8/!Xad4RSQa/GlGCU/+MR3Vn/NoxRLpsVMDRLWCzGE4R2MgQv2vpEWGtIlKZrShrvb+PR44T2K7sS/M!P5uBly2aJZLn
X-Complaints-To: ***@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ***@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1371879

Post by Not PC
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:39:09 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Is this a typical case of American "do as I say but
not as I do" hypocrisy

And you better be listening

Unlike God...who is too busy watching lesbian honeymoons

Pau

[Fester]

Post by a***@home.com
<snip>

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester
No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a
woman provides equality for all.

Blatant falsehood! Perhaps a little visual aid would help. Let's
look at the Loving vs. Virginia case for a moment. The state claimed
that the races were treated equally since the law applied equally to both.
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | NO | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| NO | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
This was the fundamental question the SCOTUS had to look at.
Were the races being treated equally? The presence of the word NO
anywhere in the chart above indicates they are not. The SCOTUS then
said that if races were to be treated equally, the chart would like like
| A Black man or | A white man or |
| woman may marry | woman may marry |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A black man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | A white man
| YES | YES | or woman
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
Now you are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally
in the marriage contract. A man may not marry another man just as a
woman my not marry another women thus you claim the sexes are treated
| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| NO | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | NO | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination based on sex [gender] is outlawed just like
discrimination based on race. In order for the sexes to be treated
| A man may marry | A woman may marry |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a man
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| YES | YES | a woman
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------
So your original statement is either a blatant lie... or you have
not fully considered the inequality in the marriage laws of
unenlightened countries as et out above.

The law recognizes difference in gender in many ways. As it must, since
such differences undeniably exist and are intrinsic to humanity.
Discrimination on gender is, in fact, present in many areas of law.
Furthermore, nothing about the history or intent of the 14th Amendment
suggests that the framers had homosexuality in mind whatsoever.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

"The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
[of the same race] provides equality for all."

[a***@home.com]

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.

***@home#1554

[Dennis Kemmerer]

[snip]

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.

More importantly, there are a number of unique protections conferred by
civil marriage statute that cannot be otherwise contractually obtained.

Some of the more important protections include permanent residency for
foreign-national spouses, immunity from testifying against one's spouse,
unquestioned second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns,
amnesty from inheritance tax, just to mention a few.

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:39:14 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"

Post by Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester
The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.

More importantly, there are a number of unique protections conferred by
civil marriage statute that cannot be otherwise contractually obtained.
Some of the more important protections include permanent residency for
foreign-national spouses, immunity from testifying against one's spouse,
unquestioned second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns,
amnesty from inheritance tax, just to mention a few.

All of which the several states can elect to confer ONLY on the
marriage of one man and one woman. The SOCTUS has made
that very, very clear. Too bad you missed it. It would have saved
you posting a lot of untrue BULL SHIT.

[Fester]

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester

Post by Roedy Green

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Why not vote in Republicans should be castrated?
These are not issues of popularity. They are constitutional issues.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

The definition of marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman
provides equality for all.

I'm afraid it doesn't if the definition is understood to be a legal
contract offering agreements and protections to the married.
Of course anybody can agree to a legal contract without marriage but
there are several side issues involved regarding rights that are
protected by the state when legal marriage is involved.

It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Josh Rosenbluth

[b***@râlant.org]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:57:57 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right. Neither is it a civil
right.

I suggest that you go to http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/pageDocs.htm ,
download the pdf file, "Arthur Smelt vs. County of Orange" and begin
reading at the second paragraph (Plaintiff asserts Loving v. Virginia)
on page 25 and read to the end, page 31. Then come back and apologize
for your ignorance.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

[Not PC]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by b***@râlant.org
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Really? Got a marriage license, fairy?

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Not PC

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by b***@râlant.org
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Really? Got a marriage license, fairy?

Why is it that you homophobic bigots like to fantasize about
everybody being homosexual?

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Not PC

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by b***@râlant.org
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Really? Got a marriage license, fairy?

Why is it that you homophobic bigots like to fantasize about
everybody being homosexual?

If it walks, talks and thinks like a homosexual it's probably a
homosexual You walk, talk and think like a homosexual.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Not PC

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by b***@râlant.org
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Really? Got a marriage license, fairy?

Why is it that you homophobic bigots like to fantasize about
everybody being homosexual?

If it walks, talks and thinks like a homosexual it's probably a
homosexual You walk, talk and think like a homosexual.

LOL! And you're the expert on walking, talking, and acting like a
homosexual.

[Emmanual Kann]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Not PC

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by b***@râlant.org
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Really? Got a marriage license, fairy?

Why is it that you homophobic bigots like to fantasize about
everybody being homosexual?

If it walks, talks and thinks like a homosexual it's probably a
homosexual You walk, talk and think like a homosexual.

Didn't you mean to say, it takes one to know one?

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

[L. Michael Roberts]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

It is as much a fundamental right as is heterosexual marriage.

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

Glad to see you support same-sex marriage "Bonny".

[unknown]

From: <>
Subject: Re: Ballot to ban gay marriage debated
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
User-Agent: OSXnews 2.08
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <5fWdneXKScTzzcPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-***@giganews.com> <***@4ax.com> <yR89g.107$***@tornado.southeast.rr.com> <***@4ax.com> <Cp7bg.1327$***@tornado.southeast.rr.com> <***@4ax.com> <Autbg.6910$***@southeast.rr.com> <Nt-dnTzyG5QI9PPZRVn-***@comcast.com> <***@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <***@comcast.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:29:35 -0500
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.168.246
X-Trace: sv3-UdnXrYkEE3UmRLbOwTf7vuTpKV6HI7fU321J4KE7PjMHPPbMG9q2rx6TBm6af3nfGzGCWWRKvs8xM+O!7AScfii3OegOd5ls3EO+9k5SnAxTjUJcb05qGuViP6UZNDBhWGPK6T/cXQYTL9QbkGIw0WRVUEtt!sKWDTp+W8TAj
X-Complaints-To: ***@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ***@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1371881

Post by b***@râlant.org
On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:57:57 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and transsexuals,
the law can accommodate them as special cases of indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover.
Straights can.

Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right. Neither is it a civil
right.

Bitchin' has yet to explain why it IS the foundation of hi
existence..

Pau

[Fester]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Fester
It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
indeterminate gender).

Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
can.

There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
desires. Tough. I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.

Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where empowered
by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not, the state
makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to make
marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning the democratic
process is Constitutionality, not your personal preferences*.

[L. Michael Roberts]

<snip>

Post by Fester
There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
desires. Tough. I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.

Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us where
anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of the
same gender marry.

<snip>

[Fester]

Post by a***@home.com
<snip>

Post by Fester
There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
desires. Tough. I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids
it. The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates
against us.

Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of
the same gender marry.

Setting my cat on fire harms my *property*. The only reason for the law
against animal cruelty is a moralistic one. As is the law defining
marriage between a man and a woman.

[Nick J.]

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com
<snip>

Post by Fester
There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
desires. Tough. I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids
it. The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates
against us.

Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of
the same gender marry.

Setting my cat on fire harms my *property*. The only reason for the law
against animal cruelty is a moralistic one. As is the law defining
marriage between a man and a woman.

And that moralistic reason would be what, exactly?

[Nick J.]

Post by Nick J.

Post by Fester

Post by a***@home.com
<snip>

Post by Fester
There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
desires. Tough. I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids
it. The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates
against us.

Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of
the same gender marry.

Setting my cat on fire harms my *property*. The only reason for the law
against animal cruelty is a moralistic one. As is the law defining
marriage between a man and a woman.

And that moralistic reason would be what, exactly?

No response, Fester? I hope you do answer, as I am still curious as to
what that moralistic reason is.

[L. Michael Roberts]

<snip>

Post by Fester

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people
of the same gender marry.

Setting my cat on fire harms my *property*. The only reason for the law
against animal cruelty is a moralistic one. As is the law defining
marriage between a man and a woman.

I not that you were unable to answer the question "Please show us where
anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of the
same gender marry."

[Fester]

Post by a***@home.com
<snip>

Post by Fester

Post by L. Michael Roberts
Setting your cat on fire harms another creature. Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people
of the same gender marry.

Setting my cat on fire harms my *property*. The only reason for the
law against animal cruelty is a moralistic one. As is the law
defining marriage between a man and a woman.

I not that you were unable to answer the question "Please show us
where anyone is harmed when two consenting, adult, non-related people of
the same gender marry."

Why should I defend a contention that I did not make?

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Post by Fester
Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where empowered
by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not, the state
makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to make
marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning the democratic
process is Constitutionality, not your personal preferences*.

Congress has made law relative to marriage: DOMA, and it is perfectly
Constitutional and outside the review of federal courts. States may
differ with regards to state policy but not federal.

[Fester]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Fester
Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where empowered
by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not, the state
makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to make
marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning the democratic
process is Constitutionality, not your personal preferences*.

Congress has made law relative to marriage: DOMA, and it is perfectly
Constitutional and outside the review of federal courts. States may
differ with regards to state policy but not federal.

The DOMA provides no definition of marriage. It specifies the
obligations of states WRT to the decisions of other states. This is as
it should be in the sense that Congress has no Constitutional authority
to define marriage, short of amending the Constitution.

[L. Michael Roberts]

Post by Fester

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Fester
Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where
empowered by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not,
the state makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress
to make marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining
marriage as between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning
the democratic process is Constitutionality, not your personal
preferences*.

Congress has made law relative to marriage: DOMA, and it is perfectly
Constitutional and outside the review of federal courts. States may
differ with regards to state policy but not federal.

The DOMA provides no definition of marriage. It specifies the
obligations of states WRT to the decisions of other states.

And thereby tramples on the "full faith and credit" clause of your
constitution.

<snip>

[No One]

Post by L. Michael Roberts

Post by Fester
The DOMA provides no definition of marriage. It specifies the
obligations of states WRT to the decisions of other states.

And thereby tramples on the "full faith and credit" clause of
your constitution.

Not really - the "full faith and credit" clause itself allows congress
to regulate the issues this clause covers, but otherwise provides a
default.

The U.S. Constitution does not prevent all bad laws from being passed,
and if DOMA is unconstitutional, it will not be because of the full
faith and credit clause.

[Fester]

Post by L. Michael Roberts

Post by Fester

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Fester
Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where
empowered by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not,
the state makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress
to make marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining
marriage as between a man and a woman. *The standard for
overturning the democratic process is Constitutionality, not your
personal preferences*.

Congress has made law relative to marriage: DOMA, and it is perfectly
Constitutional and outside the review of federal courts. States may
differ with regards to state policy but not federal.

The DOMA provides no definition of marriage. It specifies the
obligations of states WRT to the decisions of other states.

And thereby tramples on the "full faith and credit" clause of your
constitution.

That is in fact a reservation I have with the DOMA as well. I never
said that I was in favor of it. As I said, it is as it should be, "in
the sense that Congress has no Constitutional authority to define
marriage." Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the limits to which it
is, "as it should be."

[Jeff North]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:29:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester

| >
| >> It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
| >> contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
| >> this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
| >> transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
| >> indeterminate gender).
| >
| > Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
| > does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
| > unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
| > can.
|
| There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
| forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
| desires. Tough.

Are you completely stupid???
Rhetorical question BTW.

| I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
| The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.

Let's just change a word or two and see how stupid your agruement is.
-----------------
I want to set my wife on fire. But the law forbids it. The law
doesn't treat wife torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
-----------------

| Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where empowered
| by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not, the state
| makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to make
| marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining marriage as
| between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning the democratic
| process is Constitutionality, not your personal preferences*.

---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Fester]

Post by Jeff North
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:29:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester

| >
| >> It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
| >> contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
| >> this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
| >> transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
| >> indeterminate gender).
| >
| > Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
| > does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
| > unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
| > can.
|
| There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
| forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
| desires. Tough.

Are you completely stupid???
Rhetorical question BTW.

Yes, when rhetorical insults are you've got, go with it.

Post by Jeff North

| I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
| The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.

Let's just change a word or two and see how stupid your agruement is.
-----------------
I want to set my wife on fire. But the law forbids it. The law
doesn't treat wife torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
-----------------

One's wife is not one's property. People, like wives are protected by
our Constitution. I won't ask if you're stupid, you've already answered
that.

Post by Jeff North

| Laws in this country are the product of legislatures. Where empowered
| by the Constitution, the Congress makes laws. Where not, the state
| makes laws. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to make
| marriage laws, and nothing prevents the states from defining marriage as
| between a man and a woman. *The standard for overturning the democratic
| process is Constitutionality, not your personal preferences*.

---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Jeff North]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:29:27 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester

| > On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:29:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester
| >
| >>| >
| >>| >> It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
| >>| >> contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
| >>| >> this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
| >>| >> transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
| >>| >> indeterminate gender).
| >>| >
| >>| > Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
| >>| > does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
| >>| > unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
| >>| > can.
| >>|
| >>| There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
| >>| forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
| >>| desires. Tough.
| >
| > Are you completely stupid???
| > Rhetorical question BTW.
|
| Yes,

My, my, aren't we a bit thin skinned :-P

| when rhetorical insults are you've got, go with it.
|
| >>| I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
| >>| The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
| >
| > Let's just change a word or two and see how stupid your agruement is.
| > -----------------
| > I want to set my wife on fire. But the law forbids it. The law
| > doesn't treat wife torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
| > -----------------
|
| One's wife is not one's property.

Is that why you can't set you wife one fire?

| People, like wives are protected by our Constitution.

Correction: only *some* people are protected by your constitution.

| I won't ask if you're stupid, you've already answered that.

Hey, if you give me better material then the standard of replies will
improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Fester]

Post by Jeff North
On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:29:27 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester

| > On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:29:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester
| >
| >>| >
| >>| >> It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
| >>| >> contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
| >>| >> this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
| >>| >> transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
| >>| >> indeterminate gender).
| >>| >
| >>| > Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
| >>| > does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
| >>| > unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
| >>| > can.
| >>|
| >>| There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
| >>| forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
| >>| desires. Tough.
| >
| > Are you completely stupid???
| > Rhetorical question BTW.
|
| Yes,

My, my, aren't we a bit thin skinned :-P

:)

Post by Jeff North

| when rhetorical insults are you've got, go with it.
|
| >>| I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
| >>| The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
| >
| > Let's just change a word or two and see how stupid your agruement is.
| > -----------------
| > I want to set my wife on fire. But the law forbids it. The law
| > doesn't treat wife torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
| > -----------------
|
| One's wife is not one's property.

Is that why you can't set you wife one fire?

Yes, that's why.

Post by Jeff North

| People, like wives are protected by our Constitution.

Correction: only *some* people are protected by your constitution.

Would you care to tell me which people aren't?

Post by Jeff North

| I won't ask if you're stupid, you've already answered that.

Hey, if you give me better material then the standard of replies will
improve.

Why do I doubt that?

[Nick J.]

Post by Fester

Post by Jeff North
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:29:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Fester

| >
| >> It provides equality for all, because all people may enter such a
| >> contract with a person of the opposite sex (and don't bother plaguing
| >> this discussion with the tiny number of hermaphrodites and
| >> transsexuals, the law can accommodate them as special cases of
| >> indeterminate gender).
| >
| > Gay people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law
| > does not provide equality because gays can't marry the sole, otherwise
| > unmarried, unrelated, adult person they choose as their lover. Straights
| > can.
|
| There are a great many things that I would like to do, but the law
| forbids it. The law provides equality, it just doesn't satisfy *your*
| desires. Tough.

Are you completely stupid???
Rhetorical question BTW.

Yes, when rhetorical insults are you've got, go with it.

Post by Jeff North

| I want to set my cat on fire. But the law forbids it.
| The law doesn't treat cat torturers equally, it discriminates against us.

Let's just change a word or two and see how stupid your agruement is.
-----------------
I want to set my wife on fire. But the law forbids it. The law
doesn't treat wife torturers equally, it discriminates against us.
-----------------

One's wife is not one's property. People, like wives are protected by
our Constitution. I won't ask if you're stupid, you've already answered
that.

I still don't have the faintest idea what setting a cat on fire has to
do with consenting adults of the same gender wishing to get married.

[Dionisio]

Post by a***@home.com

Post by Fester
Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be
defined the way you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not a
democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it an
anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does that
mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things that are
subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be, whenever it may
be, whyever it may be.

There is the absolute of freedom of speech. It may not be impinged upon
sans compelling interest. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for
instance.)

There is the freedom of religion. It extends so far that the government
can not outlaw peyote for Native American practices. It can, however,
outlaw cannibalistic religions, or ones that advocate murder. (Thus
there are no Thugees.) Now while one might wish that the government
would find a compelling interest to go after religions that advocate
fraud and theft, said entities are also large campaign contributors; So,
it might take a while for that.

There is an absolute freedom to be free. While it took a while to be
finally recognized, slavery is not a right. It never was. But, some
things take a while to finally be fully acknowledged.

There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.

Marriage is not subject to a vote. And -- divorce rates aside -- it is
not subject to public whim. It is a right. Different race couples and
same race couples can marry. Different faith couples and same faith
couples can marry. Couples of divergent social classes, and those of the
same social class, each can marry. Folks of different ethnicities, as
well as those of the same ethnicity can marry.

Folks of differing genders can marry. People of the same gender get the
-- ahem -- "faithful" up in arms. Alas, America is not a theocracy. It
is a Democratic Republic. (As noted earlier in this overly-lengthy --
soon to be a book -- piece.)

This nation's citizens have rights, and they also have duties. The right
to an opinion is absolute. Inviolate. The right to force others to
conform to one's personal ideals, beliefs, or prejudices isn't a right.
Actually, we all have the duty to point that out. Some are just more
conscious of it than others.

It is odd that the people most likely to play the "patriotism card," the
"tradition card," or the "that minority offends my sensibilities card,"
are the ones that just don't seem to respect said duty; All the while
claiming that they have a duty. A "higher duty" at that.

Fascinatingly, a duty is also a fee, a price. The example of military
duty is one such conundrum. There is a duty to promote what is called
"unit cohesion." However, in times of war, the enlistment of homosexuals
takes a back seat to certain concerns. Curiously, we are in the midst of
an alleged "Culture War." Curiously, both sides are all to happy to
enlist folks of documented homosexual orientation.

Most curious.

Each faction insists that homosexuals are of value.

One side considers them to be of financial value. The other considers
them to be of human value.

It will be fascinating to see which side prevails.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Dionisio
There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.

From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex couples
seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal precedent (Baker
v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Josh Rosenbluth

[Dionisio]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex
couples seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal
precedent (Baker v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex
couples from marrying.

Declining to hear is not the same as ruling against. Further, the
declination was not "with prejudice." (Moot point considering the venue,
but if they really wanted to set a precedent...)

As the case was declined, assertions for or against the "strict
scrutiny" are irrelevant. The reason for the decision left that
consideration up in the air.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Dionisio

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
From prior threads, you should know SCOTUS has never ruled that strict
scrutiny (the compelling interest threshold) applies to same-sex
couples seeking marriage. To the contrary, the binding federal
precedent (Baker v. Nelson) upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex
couples from marrying.

Declining to hear is not the same as ruling against. Further, the
declination was not "with prejudice." (Moot point considering the venue,
but if they really wanted to set a precedent...)
As the case was declined, assertions for or against the "strict
scrutiny" are irrelevant. The reason for the decision left that
consideration up in the air.

No. SCOTUS did not deny certiorari. They dismissed the appeal for want
of a substantial federal question. That is with prejudice and sets
precedent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Josh Rosenbluth

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Not if the state in which they vote says no:

Facts

In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on
the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated
their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to
issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically
directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically
ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions
"does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution".


Opinion of the court

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that
a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not
applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the
right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction
based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference
in sex".


Review by the United States Supreme Court

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistant with binding precedent. "[Summary Decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. [L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such, Baker establishes that a
State's decision to define marriage in whatever manner the state
desires does not offend the United States Constitution.


Subsequent history


Lockyer v. San Francisco

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
“for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until
the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S.
at p. 344.)That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)


Wilson v. Ake

Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court—which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.


In re Kandu

By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court.


Hernandez v Robles

The intermediate appellate Court in the State of New York also noted
the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the
controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection
claims on this issue.

Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Not if the state in which they vote says no

Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Not if the state in which they vote says no

Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice's War on Traditional
Marriage

Margaret Marshall's Anti-Family Juggernaut

by Stephen Baskerville
Posted Apr 13, 2004

For all the furor sparked by the Massachusetts ruling on homosexual
marriage, the full picture has yet to emerge. Strange to say, even
opponents of same-sex marriage have seriously underestimated what is
being done by Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts courts.

The ruling on gay marriage is only the tip of an iceberg. For all
their professed concern about "privacy" and "rights," Marshall and her
colleagues are staging nothing less than a political coup that
dramatically extends judicial and all governmental power into private
life. Mandating homosexual marriages is minor endeavor compared with
the more serious business of destroying heterosexual ones.

Family destruction is not some unfortunate by-product of a
well-intentioned quest for ever-expanding definitions of equality. It
results from a deliberate attack on families by judicial ideologues
who practice not justice but gender justice: an extremist ideology
which demands that heterosexual men be separated from their wives and
children and punished for their alleged crimes against women,
children, and gays.

To glimpse this we must look behind the headline cases to the hidden
underworld of family law. Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage
debate have pointed out, in the words of Mike McManus, that "divorce
is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by
gays." They are right in ways they may not realize. In divorce court,
the forcible destruction of the family is not some theoretical
prognostication; it is already the daily reality for millions of
citizens.

Marshall presides over a judiciary where families are forcibly
separated by government agents, where children are torn from their
parents with no justification given, and where parents are railroaded
into jail with no semblance of due process of law. In Marshall's court
system, litigants find their hearing tapes doctored, their case files
falsified, and themselves framed -- all with the full knowledge of
judges. Mothers are ordered to divorce their husbands or lose their
children. Fathers are forced to confess to crimes they have not
committed. Attorneys who speak out are disbarred. Citizens who are
minding their own business are summoned to court and ordered to pay
the inflated fees of attorneys they have not hired and jailed when
they are unable.

This is not all the work of Marshall alone, but her ruling is the
culmination of not simply judicial "activism" but a combination of
ideological extremism and judicial corruption that has transformed the
Massachusetts judiciary into a Soviet-like system of kangaroo courts.
In McLarnon v. Jokisch, Marshall invoked environmental law (and
applied it to divorce!) to grant immunity to government officials and
witnesses who use perjury, false allegations, and falsified documents
to remove children from their parents and criminalize the parents. In
a divorce case, the "defendant" - a parent who is being involuntarily
divorced - is now the only party in the courtroom without immunity.

The defendant in that case, Edward McLarnon, is a forensic
audio-visual investigator whose independently corroborated evidence of
doctored hearing tapes was published in December 2000 by the
Massachusetts News. His attorney Gregory Hession says the court
removed documents from his file, falsified the docket, and withheld
the case file for months. When McLarnon complained, he was assessed
$3,500 in attorneys' fees and jailed by the same judges whose tapes
were allegedly edited. Hession says he could find no interest in the
tampering from the Middlesex Probate Court and Probate Court
Register's office, the Middlesex District Attorney, the Massachusetts
Attorney General and Inspector General, the Judicial Conduct
Commission, or Marshall's Supreme Judicial Court. In fact, Marshall
herself later assessed McLarnon an additional $16,400 in attorneys'
fees (attorneys he had not hired), for which the state moved to seize
his house and car.

The Massachusetts News also broke the story of Heidi Howard, who was
told by the state Department of Social Services (DSS) to take out a
restraining order against her husband and divorce him. When she
refused, DSS seized her children and threatened to put them up for
adoption, for which the state receives federal funds. Neither parent
was ever charged with any wrongdoing. News reporter Nev Moore says
similar cases abound.

There is reason to believe her. Financial incentives and quotas
created by the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, championed by
the Clinton administration, have resulted in a "child protection
racket" rife with "baby stealing and baby selling," according to
Hession. "I am appalled by how many times this pattern is repeated."
In family court recently the hallway was clogged with parents and
children being adopted. "You could hardly walk. You had never seen
such mass adoptions before." Forty percent of Massachusetts children
adopted have gone to gay and lesbian couples, according to Democratic
state Senator Therese Murray, who supports gay marriage. It is not
difficult to see who will supply the children of gay "parents."

Harry Stewart is another victim of Massachusetts family justice, a lay
preacher who was jailed for six months for refusing to confess to
domestic violence. Stewart was never accused of any violence and may
have been a victim himself. Forced confessions and self-denunciation
are a standard requirement of "batterers'" programs.

These cases typify "the new Orwellian [judicial] system, which has no
protection for certain categories of unfavored perpetrators of
'crimes' against the state, such as parents," says Hession. "It is a
system skewed by political agendas, not truth...where government [is]
intruding into family autonomy, paternal authority, child raising, and
even minor family conflicts." Hession is risking his livelihood.
Barbara Johnson, an attorney and whistleblower who ran for governor on
a platform of court reform, is now being disbarred.

Such experiences "are depressingly common in Massachusetts," says
attorney David Grossack. "There seem to be networks of feminists tied
in with every courthouse in Massachusetts who can create a media storm
if a decision is unfavorable to them. Inexplicable decisions,
nonsensical restraining orders, and gender bias in the extreme are the
rule, not the exception."

Marshall claimed in her gay marriage ruling that the state
constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." Yet that
is precisely what she has created in married heterosexual parents,
especially fathers. "The hue and cry about civil rights for lesbians
and gays is particularly galling for Massachusetts' fathers," reads a
letter just published in several Massachusetts newspapers. "Our civil
and human rights have been ruthlessly violated by these same judges
for decades.... Margaret Marshall is always found on the same side of
the issue: ...against fathers and their inalienable right to the
custody, care, and protection of their children."

If opponents of same-sex unions truly wish to save marriage -- and
liberty -- they must wake up soon to the fact that homosexual marriage
will not destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage. It is
already rising from the ashes.

Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children.

[No One]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.

... more lies from yet another of Bill Taylor's aliases.

[Bitchin' Bonney]

Post by No One

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.

... more lies from yet another of Bill Taylor's aliases.

Who is Bill Taylor and why do you fear him so much? Every post
that a homo or homophile can't refute is said to come from this
mysterious Bill Taylor -- when was the last time you saw a post from
this alleged "Bill Taylor"? I suggest that he is to you homosexuals
and your 'philes what the"Chupacabra" is to the uneducated of Mexico
and Central America; some thing that scares you shitless, that comes
out of the mist of night to torment them....poor babeeeeeeeeeees!

BTW -- Why did you stop posting as "Jenn" and "Bonnie B."? Are you
retiring those pantyhose or will you be wearing then again, crust and
all...you lying piece of dog shit.

[curtsybear]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.homosexuality.]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.

Sounds like you must really hate them judges what declared interracial
marriage legal too, eh? Oh, those damned law-making activist dictators!

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:43:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:11:10 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Not if the state in which they vote says no

Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

So? It has that before it's State Supreme Court became a LAW MAKING
ACTIVIST JUDGE DOMENATED DICTATORSHIP.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice's War on Traditional
Marriage
Margaret Marshall's Anti-Family Juggernaut
by Stephen Baskerville
Posted Apr 13, 2004
For all the furor sparked by the Massachusetts ruling on homosexual
marriage, the full picture has yet to emerge. Strange to say, even
opponents of same-sex marriage have seriously underestimated what is
being done by Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts courts.
The ruling on gay marriage is only the tip of an iceberg. For all
their professed concern about "privacy" and "rights," Marshall and her
colleagues are staging nothing less than a political coup that
dramatically extends judicial and all governmental power into private
life. Mandating homosexual marriages is minor endeavor compared with
the more serious business of destroying heterosexual ones.

Name one marriage destroyed by Massachusett's
"marriage destroying" gay marriage law.

Post by Bitchin' Bonney
Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Are they the ones who spend their time
looking for the "gay agenda" in childrens
TV cartoons?

[Dionisio]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Facts
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license.

Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:41:36 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Facts
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license.

Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?

They were homosexuals.

You better red it several times, boy, because it shots your argument
full of big, BIG holes.

[Dionisio]

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?

They were homosexuals.

So, that would be a "no"?

[Bitchin' Bonney]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:44:19 GMT, Dionisio

Post by Dionisio

Post by Bitchin' Bonney

Post by Dionisio

Post by Dionisio
Folks of differing genders can marry.

Critical reading time: Were they of differing genders?

They were homosexuals.

So, that would be a "no"?

I don't care what it would or wouldn't be and it makes no difference
anyway.

[Fester]

Post by Dionisio

Post by a***@home.com

Nothing in the Constitution requires marriage to be defined the way
you want it to be.

I think there are a few things in there about equality though.

Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not a
democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it an
anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does that
mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things that are
subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be, whenever it may
be, whyever it may be.

Spare me the elementary civics lesson. The word democracy may correctly
refer to any form of government that includes popular participation. It
is also used to refer to the direct, Athenian style of Democracy that
you are referring to.

Post by Dionisio
There is the absolute of freedom of speech. It may not be impinged upon
sans compelling interest. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for
instance.)
There is the freedom of religion. It extends so far that the government
can not outlaw peyote for Native American practices. It can, however,
outlaw cannibalistic religions, or ones that advocate murder. (Thus
there are no Thugees.) Now while one might wish that the government
would find a compelling interest to go after religions that advocate
fraud and theft, said entities are also large campaign contributors; So,
it might take a while for that.
There is an absolute freedom to be free. While it took a while to be
finally recognized, slavery is not a right. It never was. But, some
things take a while to finally be fully acknowledged.
There is the right to marry. ("Ah, He's finally getting to the point!"
Hey, some things take a while, all right?) This is an absolute right. It
has been tested several times in the courts, and each time there was no
argument raised that proved that the government had a compelling
interest to limit marriage to the dictates of some religious definition;
To limit it to merely one man/one woman; To limit participation in
marriage by minorities; To limit recognition of marriage due to sexual
orientation; Nor to limit the right to marry to only those whom are "of
age," as they can get hitched with parental consent if they are not of
said age.

Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry? Marriage is a
contract that the states are empowered to define. They may do so in any
manner they decide, provided it does not conflict with the Constitution.

Post by Dionisio
Marriage is not subject to a vote. And -- divorce rates aside -- it is
not subject to public whim. It is a right. Different race couples and
same race couples can marry. Different faith couples and same faith
couples can marry. Couples of divergent social classes, and those of the
same social class, each can marry. Folks of different ethnicities, as
well as those of the same ethnicity can marry.
Folks of differing genders can marry. People of the same gender get the
-- ahem -- "faithful" up in arms. Alas, America is not a theocracy. It
is a Democratic Republic. (As noted earlier in this overly-lengthy --
soon to be a book -- piece.)
This nation's citizens have rights, and they also have duties. The right
to an opinion is absolute. Inviolate. The right to force others to
conform to one's personal ideals, beliefs, or prejudices isn't a right.
Actually, we all have the duty to point that out. Some are just more
conscious of it than others.
It is odd that the people most likely to play the "patriotism card," the
"tradition card," or the "that minority offends my sensibilities card,"
are the ones that just don't seem to respect said duty; All the while
claiming that they have a duty. A "higher duty" at that.
Fascinatingly, a duty is also a fee, a price. The example of military
duty is one such conundrum. There is a duty to promote what is called
"unit cohesion." However, in times of war, the enlistment of homosexuals
takes a back seat to certain concerns. Curiously, we are in the midst of
an alleged "Culture War." Curiously, both sides are all to happy to
enlist folks of documented homosexual orientation.
Most curious.
Each faction insists that homosexuals are of value.
One side considers them to be of financial value. The other considers
them to be of human value.
It will be fascinating to see which side prevails.

Your ramblings produce nothing whatsoever of value to this discussion.

[Dionisio]

Post by Fester

Post by Dionisio
Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not
a democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it
an anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does
that mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things
that are subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be,
whenever it may be, whyever it may be.

Spare me the elementary civics lesson.

No. "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

Post by Fester
Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry?

Show me where there is a right to a minimum wage.

Post by Fester
Your ramblings produce nothing whatsoever of value to this discussion.

Hmm... So, you're contributing to "nothing of value." My, don't you feel
stupid.

[Fester]

Post by Dionisio

Post by Fester

Post by Dionisio
Not only that, there is also the form of the United States. It is not
a democracy, it is not a theocracy, it is not a republic, nor is it
an anarchist state. The nation is a Democratic Republic. What does
that mean? There are unimpingable absolutes, and there are things
that are subject to the whim of the people; Whatever that may be,
whenever it may be, whyever it may be.

Spare me the elementary civics lesson.

No. "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

Post by Fester
Show me where our Constitution provides a right to marry?

Show me where there is a right to a minimum wage.

There isn't one.

Post by Dionisio

Post by Fester
Your ramblings produce nothing whatsoever of value to this discussion.

Hmm... So, you're contributing to "nothing of value." My, don't you feel
stupid.

I feel that you're stupid.

[newsguy]

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

If you bigots had it your way blacks would still not be able to marry a

white, because 97 percent of the population did not want blacks
marrying whites. It is tyranny of the majority. Also this points out
the
USA is a nation of bigots, for the bigots.

We the bigots of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
biased union,
establish injustice, insure domestic discontent, provide for the common
religious
defense, promote the general hatred, and secure the blessings of
majority to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the
Aryan Nation of the United States of America.

"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place where a klansman
can feel at home."
---David Duke, 2002

Should read

"The fact is that the USA is still the only place where a klansman
can feel at home."
---David Duke, 2002

[a***@home.com]

Post by y***@aol.com
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?

Another minority being deprived of its rights?

***@home#1554

<snip>