Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?

[buckeye]

Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html

[excerpt]



Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag

According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
contributors.

The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
“traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
Mormon contributors have in mind?

Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

“Sealed,” according to the same site, means married in the Church not only
for the duration of this life, but forever. Smith apparently first resisted
the idea of polygamy but was then persuaded that God ordained it.

Or was the exemplar of traditional marriage Mormon leader Brigham Young,
the second prophet of the church, who, in the 1860s and 1870s, had 57
children by 16 women? So is traditional marriage one between one man and
one woman, or a man and 16 women, or maybe 28? Joseph Smith called it
“celestial marriage.”

Utah, the “Zion”, where the church settled after its members were harassed
and persecuted in the Midwest, was admitted to the Union in 1896 on
condition that it prohibit polygamy. But the church, under continuous
pressure from Congress and from U.S. marshals seizing church property,
didn’t officially end it until 1904, when the then-prophet got word from
God that He wanted “plural marriage” to stop.

The church says it now excommunicates polygamists, and presumably few have
kicked in to the Proposition 8 campaign. But as the news of the past year
made clear, there are still polygamists running around in the hills of the
southwest, including a few, it appears, with underage wives, who claim to
be the real Mormons.

The point of all this is not to wander into the twists and turns of church
history and doctrine, much less to cast doubts on it, only to question the
right of any organization that’s twice changed its mind about marriage to
try to impose its current beliefs about “traditional marriage” on others.

Is this a campaign organized by the LDS Church? The contributions of
Mormons appear to be all from individuals. But as with the campaign to pass
California Proposition 22 in 2000, which banned gay marriage until it was
overturned earlier this year by the state Supreme Court, it takes only a
formal letter or two from Salt Lake City to energize the faithful.
And there’s more. According to the Salt-Lake City Tribune, quoting a
campaign spokesman, “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
making arrangements for Californians living in Utah ‘to call friends,
family and fellow-citizens in California to urge support of the effort to
defend traditional marriage.’"

It wasn’t until 1978, just thirty years ago, that yet another “revelation”
to Mormon leaders told them that blacks were now eligible for the Mormon
priesthood, a title that had been open to all white males since the
church’s founding in 1830.
[end excerpt]

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[Hosea Prieto]

Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
“traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.

If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.

What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.

Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

[thomas p.]

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye
Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
“traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is clear
and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy is only a
tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.

Is polygamy covered by "traditional marriage" or was it a perversion?

Post by Hosea Prieto
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

Why are you such a hypocrite, and why do you ignore the thousands of years
in which polygamy was practiced all over the world including by the Hebrews
under Mosaic Law, yet, all of a sudden, one man - one woman is the sacred
traditional marriage that must be defended. Your position is ludicrous.

[Curly Surmudgeon]

Post by thomas p.

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye
Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million
from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),
roughly 46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large
contributions so far. That, needless to say, is the largest amount from
any single category of contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders
of “traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do
the Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.

Is polygamy covered by "traditional marriage" or was it a perversion?

Any sex is a perversion but only if you do it right.

Post by thomas p.

Post by Hosea Prieto
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

Why are you such a hypocrite, and why do you ignore the thousands of
years in which polygamy was practiced all over the world including by
the Hebrews under Mosaic Law, yet, all of a sudden, one man - one woman
is the sacred traditional marriage that must be defended. Your position
is ludicrous.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Legacy: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access

Post by thomas p.

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye

at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Lord Calvert]

Post by Hosea Prieto
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable.

The only "traditional marriage" that is being defended by this
legislation is the concept that big-government can define what
marriage is, stripping away that power from religious organizations
and individuals. It is government-dictated theology and is an attack
on the religious independence of America's churches. When government
dictates what marriage has to be, they are imposing by force
theological concepts on the country's churches...something that they
do not legally have the power to do.

The Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision has already very clearly stated
what big-government's legal role in marriage is. That role is "none."

Post by Hosea Prieto
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

It seems that it is the majoritarian religious in this country that is
attacking what is sacred...surrendering America's churches theological
independence to the state and having big-government dictate their
religious doctrine, just as the Soviets did.


As I've always said, "Every time you scratch a fundie, you'll find a
commie underneath."


Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry...resides
with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - US
Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia (1967)

[Hatter]

Post by Hosea Prieto

Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.

So you deny facts and obfucate. How Mormon of you.

Hatter

[chibiabos]

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye
Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
“traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

What's so scared about fucking, except for the fact that a lot of
people scream Oh God! Oh God! when doing it?

-chib

[Curly Surmudgeon]

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye
Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for
Proposition 8, the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over
$9.4 million from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS), roughly 46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in
large contributions so far. That, needless to say, is the largest
amount from any single category of contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders
of “traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do
the Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith
who, according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his
death, though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

What's so scared about fucking, except for the fact that a lot of people
scream Oh God! Oh God! when doing it?
-chib

Crazymotherfuckers believe that things which make you feel good are sins
and therefore must be regulated. Or you go to jail.

Chocolate is next.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Legacy: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access

Post by Hosea Prieto

Post by buckeye

at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[buckeye]

:|
:|> > Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
:|> > http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
:|> >
:|> > [excerpt]
:|> >
:|> > Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
:|> >
:|> > According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
:|> > the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
:|> > members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
:|> > 46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
:|> > That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
:|> > contributors.
:|> >
:|> > The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
:|> > “traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
:|> > Mormon contributors have in mind?
:|> >
:|> > Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
:|> > according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
:|> > though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”
:|>
:|> That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
:|> Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
:|>
:|> If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
:|> reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
:|>
:|> What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
:|> clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
:|> is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.
:|>
:|> Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?
:|
:|What's so scared about fucking, except for the fact that a lot of
:|people scream Oh God! Oh God! when doing it?
:|
:|-chib

some say Oh fuck! too


***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[Curly Surmudgeon]

Post by Hosea Prieto

Prop. 8: Whose "Traditional Marriage" Does It Protect?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
[excerpt]
Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition
8, the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million
from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),
roughly 46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions
so far. That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single
category of contributors.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
"traditional marriage." But what version of traditional marriage do
the Mormon contributors have in mind?
Is it the "traditional marriage" of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith
who, according to one Mormon site "was sealed to 28 women before his
death, though it is not clear how many he cohabited with."

That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in
confusion.
Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

You speak as though intolerance of the intolerant is a "Bad Thing."<tm>
I, for one, do not believe that we should tolerate bad behavior or
legislate violations of equal rights. For me it is not a "gay" thing but
a 14th Amendment issue.

Extrapolating, do you believe sane people should vote to permit
crazymotherfuckers in determining who gets equality?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Legacy: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access

Post by Hosea Prieto

at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[buckeye]

:|> Prop. 8: Whose “Traditional Marriage” Does It Protect?
:|> http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
:|>
:|> [excerpt]
:|>
:|> Schrag.gifBy Peter Schrag
:|>
:|> According to the best estimates, the big money campaign for Proposition 8,
:|> the initiative banning gay marriage, has collected over $9.4 million from
:|> members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), roughly
:|> 46 percent of the $20 million-plus raised in large contributions so far.
:|> That, needless to say, is the largest amount from any single category of
:|> contributors.
:|>
:|> The sponsors of the November ballot measure call themselves defenders of
:|> “traditional marriage.” But what version of traditional marriage do the
:|> Mormon contributors have in mind?
:|>
:|> Is it the” traditional marriage” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith who,
:|> according to one Mormon site “was sealed to 28 women before his death,
:|> though it is not clear how many he cohabited with.”
:|
:|That is not a 'traditional marriage' for members of the Church of Jesus
:|Christ of Latter-day Saints, then or now.
:|
:|If you were honestly inclined, you could go far in understanding the
:|reasons for polygamy. But none of that is relevant here.
:|
:|What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
:|clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
:|is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.
:|
:|Why are you so intolerant of those that seek to protect what is sacred?

You do realize that if you are going to try and talk directly to the
originalauthor you need to do it someplace other then here since this is a
article that was posted by me here but not written by me?


Did you bother to click on the URL above and read the actual article? I
would be there there is a section for comments under the original article
and the oddes are greater that the original author might see your comments
there than they ever would be here.


***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[Douglas Berry]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:59:29 -0700 Hosea Prieto
<***@sender.org> carved the following into the hard stone of
alt.atheism

Post by Hosea Prieto
What is relevant is "traditional marriage", a term whose meaning is
clear and unmistakable. Attempting to confuse the issue with polygamy
is only a tactic and ploy of the foolish that wish to dwell in confusion.

Traditionally, marriages were arranged by parents for their children
to increase the value of family holdings. I think the last law
requiring parental approval of an adult woman marrying wasn't off the
books until the early 20th century.

The idea of romance leading to a proposal and marriage independant of
family concerns is a very recent development. As late as the 1940s you
could be arrested under morals laws for eloping - even if your bride
was in her twenties!

Is this the kind of tradition you're thinking of?
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[buckeye]

:|
:|> Prop. 8: Whose "Traditional Marriage" Does It Protect?
:|> http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
:|>
:|> [excerpt]
:|>
:|
:|It protects _all_ "traditional" marriage by not diluting marriage with
:|deviant sexual practices.

Study history. Opppps sorry, I had forgotten you don't study anything. Tt
gives u headaches.

:|
:|IF gay marriage is about collecting, protecting, and passing assets to a
:|survivor, then I accept the goal but not the vehicle - marriage. If gay
:|marriage is about hospital visitation, then I accept the goal but not the
:|vehicle.
:|
:|Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman. Anything else is not
:|marriage. It might be worthy of protecting and passing acquired assets, but
:|it's not marriage.
:|

So you say, but you do have a well documented record of saying a lot stupid
false things. A record of making things up as you go along.

Why should this be any different

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[buckeye]

:|
:|> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:16:07 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
:|>
:|>>
:|>>> Prop. 8: Whose "Traditional Marriage" Does It Protect?
:|>>> http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
:|>>>
:|>>> [excerpt]
:|>>>
:|>>
:|>>It protects _all_ "traditional" marriage by not diluting marriage with
:|>>deviant sexual practices.
:|>
:|> What "deviant sexual practices" Jeffy?
:|>
:|>>IF gay marriage is about collecting, protecting, and passing assets to a
:|>>survivor, then I accept the goal but not the vehicle
:|>
:|> Marriage is NOTHING more than a LEGAL CONTRACT entered
:|> into and sanctioned by the state.
:|>>
:|>>Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman
:|>
:|> No, you're trying to infer the Religious component as
:|> being the basis of marriage
:|>
:|> It is not.
:|
:|
:|I do not agree. I'll be voting Yes on 8. And, I'll be proud of my position.
:|

Yes you have always shown that you are proud of your prejudices, bigotry,
narrow mindedness and stupidity

This has been well documented.

Nothing is going to change in that with you.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[buckeye]

:|
:|> <snip>
:|>> Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman. Anything else is not
:|>> marriage. It might be worthy of protecting and passing acquired assets,
:|>> but
:|>> it's not marriage.
:|>
:|> It's impossible for homosexuals[1] to "marry"[2] for they cannot
:|> "consummate"[3]. Nor can they reasonably expect their sexual activity to
:|> procreate[4]. Theirs is an act for sexual gratification only.
:|>
:|>
:|> [1] having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex
:|> [2] -gamy n combining form -ES [ME -gamie, fr. LL -gamia, fr. Gk]
:|> 1 a : marriage <exogamy> b : union for propagation or repro-
:|> duction <allogamy> 2 [NL -gamia (as in Cryptogamia), fr. Gk
:|> -gamia -gamy (marriage) a : possession of such reproduc-
:|> tive organs <cleistogamy> b : possession of (such) a mode of
:|> fertilization <porogamy>
:|> [3] Carried to the utmost extent or degree; of the highest
:|> quality; complete; perfect.
:|> [4] gcide pr. & vb. n. {Procreating}.] [L. procreatus, p. p. of
:|> procreare; pro forward, forth + create to create.]
:|> To generate and produce; to beget; to engender.
:|>
:|> --
:|
:|
:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance that
:|homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and wealth to the
:|survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject the notion of gay
:|marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you don't
personally approve of

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[Info Junkie]

"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance that
:|homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and wealth to the
:|survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject the notion of gay
:|marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you don't
personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this
thread implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage
benefits to homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to
marry under CA law. A few points:

1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is
determined on what's best...for society.
(accomplished through state/federal law)

2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right. While the CA SC may
have perverted the definition of marriage for CA homosexuals (ignoring
stare decsis wrt strict scrutiny guidelines), there remains the
matters of society "awarding" benefits to homosexuals married in CA.

3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.

"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

...The Equal Protection Clause 'is not a license for courts to
judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices.'"
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

[N***@Click.com]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:07:23 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance that
:|homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and wealth to the
:|survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject the notion of gay
:|marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you don't
personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this
thread implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage
benefits to homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

Post by Info Junkie
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

Nonsense. Inalienable rights are those that men have
nothing to do with

Post by Info Junkie
b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is
determined on what's best...for society.
(accomplished through state/federal law)

Nonsense

A civil right is predicated on equal application of
law.

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right",

The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Until Gideon v Wainwright, the due process clause never
covered legal representation in state courts either

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:07:23 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance that
:|homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and wealth to the
:|survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject the notion of gay
:|marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you don't
personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this
thread implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage
benefits to homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences. Why you'd want
"Equal protection of the law" is beyond me... :-)

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

Nonsense. Inalienable rights are those that men have
nothing to do with

ROTFLMHO. Try reading what is written,not what you hoped I wrote. The
decisions on how individuals behave is determined by themselves.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is
determined on what's best...for society.
(accomplished through state/federal law)

Nonsense
A civil right is predicated on equal application of
law.

Absolute baloney.

The evidence has been provided ad nauseum throughout a multitude of
threads in this forum. There is no "right" to marriage benefits any
more than there is a"right" to fish without a valid fishing license.
Criteria are set up by society to acknowledge a legitimate marriage or
fish legally caught.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right",

The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Until Gideon v Wainwright, the due process clause never
covered legal representation in state courts either

Whir...spin....another of your fallacies of distraction. None of which
refutes anything I posted.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

No matter what the evidence, or how often and multiple ways it's
provided and presented, mentally small children like yourself continue
to "snip" (or ignore) it as if it doesn't exist while *whining* for
things they never had a right to in the first place.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:49:27 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

So you're saying that people never had the right to
marry?

[DanielSan]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

Actually, that's not true. They had it, until they decided to do away
with it.

Post by Info Junkie
No matter what the evidence, or how often and multiple ways it's
provided and presented, mentally small children like yourself continue
to "snip" (or ignore) it as if it doesn't exist while *whining* for
things they never had a right to in the first place.

And that's a load of bullshit. And you know it.

...or do you?

[Info Junkie]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:27:14 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

Actually, that's not true. They had it, until they decided to do away
with it.

Homosexuals never had a "right" to have a homosexual marriage
recognized nor to receive marriage benefits. No one "took it away", as
you can't "eliminate" something you ever had in the first place.

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie
No matter what the evidence, or how often and multiple ways it's
provided and presented, mentally small children like yourself continue
to "snip" (or ignore) it as if it doesn't exist while *whining* for
things they never had a right to in the first place.

And that's a load of bullshit. And you know it.
...or do you?

What's "bullsh**"? That that poster "snip" (or ignores)" the evidence
posted to him over the years, or that he doesn't whine about "rights'
that society does not recognize as existing?

[DanielSan]

Post by Info Junkie
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:27:14 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

Actually, that's not true. They had it, until they decided to do away
with it.

Homosexuals never had a "right" to have a homosexual marriage

And black people never had a "right" to vote in the United States.

Post by Info Junkie
recognized nor to receive marriage benefits. No one "took it away", as
you can't "eliminate" something you ever had in the first place.

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie
No matter what the evidence, or how often and multiple ways it's
provided and presented, mentally small children like yourself continue
to "snip" (or ignore) it as if it doesn't exist while *whining* for
things they never had a right to in the first place.

And that's a load of bullshit. And you know it.
...or do you?

What's "bullsh**"? That that poster "snip" (or ignores)" the evidence
posted to him over the years, or that he doesn't whine about "rights'
that society does not recognize as existing?

No. The bullshit that they never had the right to marriage in the first
place. I know MANY churches that have always had same sex marriage
ceremonies.

[Phlip]

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie
Homosexuals never had a "right" to have a homosexual marriage

And black people never had a "right" to vote in the United States.

Being black is a CHOICE, stupid!

They could wear horn-rimmed glasses, arrow shirts, wing-tipped shoes, &
fedora hats, and behave completely white, if they wanted to!

[DanielSan]

Post by Info Junkie
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:27:14 -0700, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.

Equal protection of the law doesn't exist in the
constitution?

??? Equal Protection of individuals under the law is consistent for
citizens regardless of their personal preferences

Not when you're trying to eliminate their right to
marry whom they please and be granted the same status.

ROTFLMHO. You can't "eliminate" something you never had child.

Actually, that's not true. They had it, until they decided to do away
with it.

Homosexuals never had a "right" to have a homosexual marriage
recognized nor to receive marriage benefits. No one "took it away", as
you can't "eliminate" something you ever had in the first place.

Okay, evidently, you're not going to ever going to see it, so I'll try
this tack:

As soon as heterosexual couples (of which there are two consenting
parties) got the right to LEGALLY marry, then it opens it up to ALL
couples (of which there are two consenting parties). That includes
homosexuals.

To deny homosexuals to marry the person of their choosing based solely
on the gender of the other consenting party violates the 14th Amendment.

Get it now?

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

Nonsense. Inalienable rights are those that men have
nothing to do with

ROTFLMHO. Try reading what is written,not what you hoped I wrote. The
decisions on how individuals behave is determined by themselves.

You used the term "inalienable rights" and are not a
function of behavior to be granted them

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior
is determined by an individual on what's best...for the
individual.

Nonsense. Inalienable rights are those that men have
nothing to do with

ROTFLMHO. Try reading what is written,not what you hoped I wrote. The
decisions on how individuals behave is determined by themselves.

You used the term "inalienable rights" and are not a
function of behavior to be granted them

???

"inalienable rights" are not a behavior nor are they "granted" by
society nor a government.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:33 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
"inalienable rights" are not a behavior nor are they "granted" by
society nor a government.

Therefore knocking down the claim that 'behavior" is a
component of the right to marry.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:33 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
"inalienable rights" are not a behavior nor are they "granted" by
society nor a government.

Therefore knocking down the claim that 'behavior" is a
component of the right to marry.

??? Marriage is not an inalienable right anymore than driving on
public roads.

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:17:35 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:33 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
"inalienable rights" are not a behavior nor are they "granted" by
society nor a government.

Therefore knocking down the claim that 'behavior" is a
component of the right to marry.

??? Marriage is not an inalienable right anymore than driving on
public roads.

Then by application of constitutional principles it
cannot be arbitrarily denied any citizen.

SNICKER

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
A civil right is predicated on equal application of
law.

Absolute baloney.
The evidence has been provided ad nauseum throughout a multitude of
threads in this forum.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

So that makes your claim true?

You pathetic fuckwit.

CIVIL RIGHTS : pl.n. 1. The rights belonging to an
individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the
fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the
13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil
liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws,
and freedom from discrimination.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
A civil right is predicated on equal application of
law.

Absolute baloney.
The evidence has been provided ad nauseum throughout a multitude of
threads in this forum.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
So that makes your claim true?

One test is that you've "snipped" every piece of evidence I've posted
showing your claims as baloney.

Post by N***@Click.com
You pathetic fuckwit.
CIVIL RIGHTS : pl.n. 1. The rights belonging to an
individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the
fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the
13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil
liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws,
and freedom from discrimination.

You're quite a clown. Notice in your own paragraph it refers to
"citizenship", a restraint imposed by government/society. Notice too
it refers to "privledges" and "civil liberties", all granted/ensured
by government, all of which have been or may once again be restrained
or "interpreted" by government...as opposed to"inalienable rights".

Where does it say anything about civil rights being "predicated on
equal application"?

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:38 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
So that makes your claim true?

One test is that you've "snipped" every piece of evidence I've posted
showing your claims as baloney

Your so-called "evidence" is baloney

That's why.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:38 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
So that makes your claim true?

One test is that you've "snipped" every piece of evidence I've posted
showing your claims as baloney

Your so-called "evidence" is baloney
That's why.

ROTFLMHO. If that were true child, you'd have no problem providing
credible evidence to refute it....but you've not provided one shred of
evdience that does refute it.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Exactly

You can't get married (legally) without a license

Being required a license, means it's a civil act,
covered by law.

Ergo---Civil

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

You can't fish (legally) without a license

Post by N***@Click.com
Being required a license, means it's a civil act,
covered by law.

ROTFLMHO....it also means society has placed a restraint on the
actions of the individual(s), i.e., marriage or fishing.

Post by N***@Click.com
Ergo---Civil

For society (i.e. laws) to recognize the legitimacy of either, both
marriage and fishing REQUIRE obtaining a license. Obtaining a license
REQUIRES you meet the criteria set down (i.e.laws) to obtain that
license.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:42 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

You can't fish (legally) without a license

Adding to the evidence that trying to apply a religious
component to marriage is stupid

Would you deny a fishing license to a gay couple?
]

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:42 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

You can't fish (legally) without a license

Adding to the evidence that trying to apply a religious
component to marriage is stupid

Where's the "religious component"? IIRC, every US State has marriage
criteria for their marraiage to be legally recognized by that state.

Post by N***@Click.com
Would you deny a fishing license to a gay couple?

??? "Couples" don't get a fishing license.

[DanielSan]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:42 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

You can't fish (legally) without a license

Adding to the evidence that trying to apply a religious
component to marriage is stupid

Where's the "religious component"? IIRC, every US State has marriage
criteria for their marraiage to be legally recognized by that state.

And it's unconstitutional for heterosexuals to have special rights.

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

Actually, this is not true.

About 15 states recognize, maybe with some restrictions, common law
marriages, marriages without a license.
http://tinyurl.com/5ljhcj

The US also recognizes foreign marriages, some of which are strictly
civil with no marriage license. To make the marriage legal in the US all
that is needed is an apostille certificate certifying the marriage if
the foreign country has ratified the Hague Convention --- a certificate,
not a license.

Post by Info Junkie
You can't fish (legally) without a license

Post by N***@Click.com
Being required a license, means it's a civil act,
covered by law.

ROTFLMHO....it also means society has placed a restraint on the
actions of the individual(s), i.e., marriage or fishing.

Post by N***@Click.com
Ergo---Civil

For society (i.e. laws) to recognize the legitimacy of either, both
marriage and fishing REQUIRE obtaining a license. Obtaining a license
REQUIRES you meet the criteria set down (i.e.laws) to obtain that
license.

And to pay the appropriate fee.

Obtaining the license in and of itself DOES NOT convey anything but the
right to get married. It conveys no rights, privileges or special status.

That does not occur until the wedding, which does not have to occur
immediately, and in some states cannot occur until days after the
license is issued.

All the license does is certify that the applicants are of legal age
(whatever that is for the specific jurisdiction), that any previous
marriages have been legally severed, certain familial relationships are
not in play, and, in some states, that the applicants do not have
certain diseases.

Marriage licenses in the US historically have not been used to infer
legality on marriage, but to prevent marriage.

In the 1920's, for ex., 38 states required licenses to prevent whites
and blacks from intermarrying.

Later they were used to screen for syphilis and other venereal diseases,
some genetic diseases, and certain mental diseases, but lately many
states are removing blood tests.

Some states have also proposed a marriage counseling requirement to get
a license.

Historically, the rationale behind marriage licenses was "The
requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the
basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens
and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from
disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records;
or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think
carefully before marrying."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

All of which means that marriage is NOT a right because the licensing
procedure is designed to prevent marriages by screening out
"ineligibles", not to enable marriages.


Now if you want to talk about marriage as a contract, and the
requirement that there be equal treatment under contract law, then that
is another issue.

Larry

[Info Junkie]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:21:33 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

Actually, this is not true.
About 15 states recognize, maybe with some restrictions, common law
marriages, marriages without a license.
http://tinyurl.com/5ljhcj

Thank you for the URL and the reminder about common-law marriages Mr
Hewitt.

As your URL points out, common-law marriages are legal "in a handful
of states"...and even those are beginning to dwindle. ITM, each of
those states have criteria set down that must be met for the state to
recognize a legal marriage...between heterosexuals.

Post by Larry Hewitt
The US also recognizes foreign marriages, some of which are strictly
civil with no marriage license.

Agreed...if the country where the couple were married in recognizes
their marriage as legal....and IF the couple is heterosexual.

Will same-sex marriages be recognized by the United States?
"No, it does not and the reason is that that general recognition
principle of marriages has always had an important exception, the
public policy exception, so that if a marriage violated the public
policy of the American government or the state, then it wouldn't
necessarily be valid...many times states have said we're not bound,
we're not obligated to give credit to your marriage if it violates our
own notion of public policy."
http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm

Post by Larry Hewitt
To make the marriage legal in the US all
that is needed is an apostille certificate certifying the marriage if
the foreign country has ratified the Hague Convention --- a certificate,
not a license.

As long as the marriage is between heterosexuals.

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie
You can't fish (legally) without a license

Post by N***@Click.com
Being required a license, means it's a civil act,
covered by law.

ROTFLMHO....it also means society has placed a restraint on the
actions of the individual(s), i.e., marriage or fishing.

Post by N***@Click.com
Ergo---Civil

For society (i.e. laws) to recognize the legitimacy of either, both
marriage and fishing REQUIRE obtaining a license. Obtaining a license
REQUIRES you meet the criteria set down (i.e.laws) to obtain that
license.

And to pay the appropriate fee.

...as usual...:-)

Post by Larry Hewitt
Obtaining the license in and of itself DOES NOT convey anything but the
right to get married. It conveys no rights, privileges or special status.

Agreed...the state recognizes that you've APPLIED FOR a marriage
license (marriage application) and once ACCEPTED, the state has
granted the couple a "civil right" to get married in that state as
you've met that state's criteria and will issue a marriage license.

Post by Larry Hewitt
That does not occur until the wedding, which does not have to occur
immediately, and in some states cannot occur until days after the
license is issued.

I agree. While the wedding ceremony itself is irrelevent to the state,
the paperwork, i.e., marriage license/affidavits/whatever, needs to be
signed/witnessed by someone the state acknowledge's is authorized to
be an officiant representing the state (notary, priest, whatever)

Post by Larry Hewitt
All the license does is certify that the applicants are of legal age
(whatever that is for the specific jurisdiction), that any previous
marriages have been legally severed, certain familial relationships are
not in play, and, in some states, that the applicants do not have
certain diseases.
Marriage licenses in the US historically have not been used to infer
legality on marriage, but to prevent marriage.
In the 1920's, for ex., 38 states required licenses to prevent whites
and blacks from intermarrying.
Later they were used to screen for syphilis and other venereal diseases,
some genetic diseases, and certain mental diseases, but lately many
states are removing blood tests.
Some states have also proposed a marriage counseling requirement to get
a license.
Historically, the rationale behind marriage licenses was "The
requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the
basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens
and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from
disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records;
or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think
carefully before marrying."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

Your points note the history and criteria for each state may vary.

Post by Larry Hewitt
All of which means that marriage is NOT a right because the licensing
procedure is designed to prevent marriages by screening out
"ineligibles", not to enable marriages.

The Courts have deemed marriage is a civil right.

Post by Larry Hewitt
Now if you want to talk about marriage as a contract, and the
requirement that there be equal treatment under contract law, then that
is another issue.

Agreed.

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by Info Junkie
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:21:33 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right.

By being a civil thing, and part of law, then the
application of the law must be equal.

Because it's a "civil thing"? ROTFLMHO

Exactly
You can't get married (legally) without a license

Actually, this is not true.
About 15 states recognize, maybe with some restrictions, common law
marriages, marriages without a license.
http://tinyurl.com/5ljhcj

Thank you for the URL and the reminder about common-law marriages Mr
Hewitt.
As your URL points out, common-law marriages are legal "in a handful
of states"...and even those are beginning to dwindle. ITM, each of
those states have criteria set down that must be met for the state to
recognize a legal marriage...between heterosexuals.

Irrelevant.

You stated an absolute, which I punctured, thus your logic is invalid.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
The US also recognizes foreign marriages, some of which are strictly
civil with no marriage license.

Agreed...if the country where the couple were married in recognizes
their marriage as legal....and IF the couple is heterosexual.

No.

The Hague Convention, which dictates the international recognition of
local legal contracts, does NOT specify whether or not legal homosexual
marriages are recognized in the US.

Post by Info Junkie
Will same-sex marriages be recognized by the United States?
"No, it does not and the reason is that that general recognition
principle of marriages has always had an important exception, the
public policy exception, so that if a marriage violated the public
policy of the American government or the state, then it wouldn't
necessarily be valid...many times states have said we're not bound,
we're not obligated to give credit to your marriage if it violates our
own notion of public policy."
http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm

Worthless opinion piece.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
To make the marriage legal in the US all
that is needed is an apostille certificate certifying the marriage if
the foreign country has ratified the Hague Convention --- a certificate,
not a license.

As long as the marriage is between heterosexuals.

Still wrong.

To date, this has not been tested.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie
You can't fish (legally) without a license

Post by N***@Click.com
Being required a license, means it's a civil act,
covered by law.

ROTFLMHO....it also means society has placed a restraint on the
actions of the individual(s), i.e., marriage or fishing.

Post by N***@Click.com
Ergo---Civil

For society (i.e. laws) to recognize the legitimacy of either, both
marriage and fishing REQUIRE obtaining a license. Obtaining a license
REQUIRES you meet the criteria set down (i.e.laws) to obtain that
license.

And to pay the appropriate fee.

...as usual...:-)

Post by Larry Hewitt
Obtaining the license in and of itself DOES NOT convey anything but the
right to get married. It conveys no rights, privileges or special status.

Agreed...the state recognizes that you've APPLIED FOR a marriage
license (marriage application) and once ACCEPTED, the state has
granted the couple a "civil right" to get married in that state as
you've met that state's criteria and will issue a marriage license.

There is no "civil right" of marriage

Ponder this --- does the marriage license requirement invalidate a
religious service without a license, and is this a violation of the
first amendment? What if a particular faith believes that a civil
interference in church business is not to be tolerated?

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
That does not occur until the wedding, which does not have to occur
immediately, and in some states cannot occur until days after the
license is issued.

I agree. While the wedding ceremony itself is irrelevent to the state,
the paperwork, i.e., marriage license/affidavits/whatever, needs to be
signed/witnessed by someone the state acknowledge's is authorized to
be an officiant representing the state (notary, priest, whatever)

The wedding ceremony is _critical_ to the state. The type of ceremony
may be irrelevant, but the ceremony _must_ occur and _must_ be presided
over by an approved (and what this means varies from state to state)
practitioner.

Without a ceremony presided over by an appropriate official the contract
does not exist. And it is the contract that conveys all the "rights and
privileges" of marriage, not the license, not the certificate of
marriage, affidavits, forms, or any other product of dead trees.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
All the license does is certify that the applicants are of legal age
(whatever that is for the specific jurisdiction), that any previous
marriages have been legally severed, certain familial relationships are
not in play, and, in some states, that the applicants do not have
certain diseases.
Marriage licenses in the US historically have not been used to infer
legality on marriage, but to prevent marriage.
In the 1920's, for ex., 38 states required licenses to prevent whites
and blacks from intermarrying.
Later they were used to screen for syphilis and other venereal diseases,
some genetic diseases, and certain mental diseases, but lately many
states are removing blood tests.
Some states have also proposed a marriage counseling requirement to get
a license.
Historically, the rationale behind marriage licenses was "The
requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the
basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens
and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from
disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records;
or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think
carefully before marrying."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

Your points note the history and criteria for each state may vary.

But the underlying principals are the same, an interference in persoanl
behavior to reflect "state interest". And, as noted, sometimes that
"state interest" was overtly discriminatory and unconstitutional, as the
gay marriage ban is today.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
All of which means that marriage is NOT a right because the licensing
procedure is designed to prevent marriages by screening out
"ineligibles", not to enable marriages.

The Courts have deemed marriage is a civil right.

No, they have not.

Court rulings on marriage rule that states have limited ability to
interfere or regulate marriage.

They are not a right.

For if they were a right your proposition would go right out the door
--- the states CANNOT and MUST NOT limit any "right". Rights are universal.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Larry Hewitt
Now if you want to talk about marriage as a contract, and the
requirement that there be equal treatment under contract law, then that
is another issue.

Agreed.

And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on any
basis except age.

Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.

Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental housing
based on membership in a class have consistently been denied as
unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality, gender,
marital status, presence of children (adults only), age, ..., a whole
host of restrictions have been denied.

Each party to the lease, like in a marriage contract, has a specific
list of rights and requirements. And each party has the right to
negotiate changes to the basic lease, like a marriage contract (pre-nup,
for ex.) But those changes _cannot_ go contrary to law or the constitution.


IMHO, and that of others, _any_ restriction on the marriage contract,
not just homosexuality, but polygamy and the like, are unconstitutional
violations of the first or 14th amendments.

For the life of me what I cannot understand is how conservatives,
especially strict constructionist conservatives, are willing to abandon
the constitution for social issues.

Larry

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on any
basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental housing
based on membership in a class have consistently been denied as
unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality, gender,
marital status, presence of children (adults only), age, ..., a whole
host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?

Josh Rosenbluth

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:37:02 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on any
basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental housing
based on membership in a class have consistently been denied as
unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality, gender,
marital status, presence of children (adults only), age, ..., a whole
host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?

The point is that religious nuts are trying to
construct the law to exclude same sex citizens the
advantage that opposite sex citizens enjoy.

As defined by religion.

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on
any basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental housing
based on membership in a class have consistently been denied as
unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality, gender,
marital status, presence of children (adults only), age, ..., a whole
host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?
Josh Rosenbluth

http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31989154

Larry

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on
any basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental housing
based on membership in a class have consistently been denied as
unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality, gender,
marital status, presence of children (adults only), age, ..., a whole
host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?

http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31989154

Those are statutory provisions, not constitutional ones.

Josh Rosenbluth

[DanielSan]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals on
any basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental
housing based on membership in a class have consistently been denied
as unconstitutional, restrictions based on race, homosexuality,
gender, marital status, presence of children (adults only), age,
..., a whole host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?

http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31989154

Those are statutory provisions, not constitutional ones.

9th, 14th, and 19th Amendments, then?

"Same sex marriage" has nothing to do with the fact that they're
homosexuals but that the consenting parties are of the same sex. If
"same sex marriage" was allowed in all 50 states, heterosexuals and
homosexuals alike would be allowed to marry a person of either gender.

Sound good to you?

[Phlip]

Post by DanielSan
9th, 14th, and 19th Amendments, then?
"Same sex marriage" has nothing to do with the fact that they're
homosexuals but that the consenting parties are of the same sex. If "same
sex marriage" was allowed in all 50 states, heterosexuals and homosexuals
alike would be allowed to marry a person of either gender.

Am I allowed to marry a guy and then not have sex with him?

Or are we inviting even more gov't intrusion into our bedrooms?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by DanielSan

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
And contracts cannot be limited to certain classes of individuals
on any basis except age.
Consider the residential lease, perhaps the second most frequently
signed contract.
Attempts throughout history to allow discrimination in rental
housing based on membership in a class have consistently been
denied as unconstitutional, restrictions based on race,
homosexuality, gender, marital status, presence of children (adults
only), age, ..., a whole host of restrictions have been denied.

Citations for the unconstitutionality for restrictions based on sexuality?

http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31989154

Those are statutory provisions, not constitutional ones.

9th, 14th, and 19th Amendments, then?
"Same sex marriage" has nothing to do with the fact that they're
homosexuals but that the consenting parties are of the same sex. If
"same sex marriage" was allowed in all 50 states, heterosexuals and
homosexuals alike would be allowed to marry a person of either gender.
Sound good to you?

What is the relevance of your comments to my request for a court case
that supports Larry's assertion?

Also regarding your comments, the 19th Amendment???

Josh Rosenbluth

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:18:35 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt
Ponder this --- does the marriage license requirement invalidate a
religious service without a license, a

I believe absent a license (which most churches
require), the issue is the validity of any legal action
between the parties regarding property, etc.

IF a church would perform a ceremony, I don't think any
law would be broken, (unless there is a law against
churches doing that, ---I don't know).

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:18:35 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt
Ponder this --- does the marriage license requirement invalidate a
religious service without a license, a

I believe absent a license (which most churches
require),

The churches require a license because the state requires a license.

My question was what would happen if a church defied the state and
performed a marriage without one?


the issue is the validity of any legal action

Post by N***@Click.com
between the parties regarding property, etc.
IF a church would perform a ceremony, I don't think any
law would be broken, (unless there is a law against
churches doing that, ---I don't know).

I agree, no law would be broken.

But would the couple have all the rights of a "legally" married couple,
joint ownership, right to visit in hospital, inheritance, etc?

Would a first amendment challenge overturn the denial of any of these
rights? And if so, what would it do to requirements for a license?


Larry

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by N***@Click.com
IF a church would perform a ceremony, I don't think any
law would be broken, (unless there is a law against
churches doing that, ---I don't know).

I agree, no law would be broken.
But would the couple have all the rights of a "legally" married couple,
joint ownership, right to visit in hospital, inheritance, etc?
Would a first amendment challenge overturn the denial of any of these
rights? And if so, what would it do to requirements for a license?

Why would the First Amendment be implicated?

Josh Rosenbluth

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by N***@Click.com
IF a church would perform a ceremony, I don't think any
law would be broken, (unless there is a law against
churches doing that, ---I don't know).

I agree, no law would be broken.
But would the couple have all the rights of a "legally" married
couple, joint ownership, right to visit in hospital, inheritance, etc?
Would a first amendment challenge overturn the denial of any of these
rights? And if so, what would it do to requirements for a license?

Why would the First Amendment be implicated?

Religion. The supposition is that a church considers marriage to be
solely a civil, religious matter not to be interfered with by the state.

Imagine, for example, a religion that matches children together and
marries them at age 12.

Larry

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by N***@Click.com
IF a church would perform a ceremony, I don't think any
law would be broken, (unless there is a law against
churches doing that, ---I don't know).

I agree, no law would be broken.
But would the couple have all the rights of a "legally" married
couple, joint ownership, right to visit in hospital, inheritance, etc?
Would a first amendment challenge overturn the denial of any of these
rights? And if so, what would it do to requirements for a license?

Why would the First Amendment be implicated?

Religion. The supposition is that a church considers marriage to be
solely a civil, religious matter not to be interfered with by the state.

I am not following the relevance of this First Amendment
non-interference concept (which I agree with, but see the exception
below) to being denied the benefits of a state-recognized marriage.
That denial isn't interference by the state into religion, right?

Post by Larry Hewitt
Imagine, for example, a religion that matches children together and
marries them at age 12.

If there is a general law which forbids (*) such marriages, and
incidentally impacts religion, it is constitutional under Employment
Division
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZS.html).

Josh Rosenbluth

(*) by "forbids", I mean provides sanctions against, not just merely
withholding state recognition.

[Phlip]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Larry Hewitt
Would a first amendment challenge overturn the denial of any of these
rights? And if so, what would it do to requirements for a license?

Why would the First Amendment be implicated?

Thou shalt not cut a law that restricts the freedom of a religion.

[Phlip]

Post by Larry Hewitt
The churches require a license because the state requires a license.
My question was what would happen if a church defied the state and
performed a marriage without one?

What if a guy marries a girl who used to be a guy?

Does Prop 8 specific the exact genetic assay required to separate male from
female? Or does it rely on the crude metaphor of a wiener and a bun?

And would a genetics-based Prop 8 allow a guy to marry a guy who used to be
a girl?

All questions that could entertain the CA Supreme Court for years. What
could be more important??

[DanielSan]

Post by Phlip

Post by Larry Hewitt
The churches require a license because the state requires a license.
My question was what would happen if a church defied the state and
performed a marriage without one?

What if a guy marries a girl who used to be a guy?
Does Prop 8 specific the exact genetic assay required to separate male from
female? Or does it rely on the crude metaphor of a wiener and a bun?
And would a genetics-based Prop 8 allow a guy to marry a guy who used to be
a girl?
All questions that could entertain the CA Supreme Court for years. What
could be more important??

And that doesn't even begin to address the intersexed people out there.
Who are they allowed to marry?

[N***@Click.com]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:18:35 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt
The wedding ceremony is _critical_ to the state. The type of ceremony
may be irrelevant, but the ceremony _must_ occur and _must_ be presided
over by an approved (and what this means varies from state to state)
practitioner.
Without a ceremony presided over by an appropriate official the contract
does not exist. And it is the contract that conveys all the "rights and
privileges" of marriage, not the license, not the certificate of
marriage, affidavits, forms, or any other product of dead trees.

Sorry, didn't read far enough.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

One piece my ass

Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Bullshit cite---provides no clue as to whether it was
the decison apriori, Obiter dicta, or some obscure shit
that you made up.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

One piece my ass
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Bullshit cite---provides no clue as to whether it was
the decison apriori, Obiter dicta, or some obscure shit
that you made up.

ROTFLMHO. I have no need to "make stuff up" sonny. You're proven
yourself so clueless time-and-again one need only present the facts
...which is why you "snip" them as if they don't exist...something
you've done again-and-again in these threads.

If you actually read it you'll note it's a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

The only "Bullsh**" is your failed attempt to dismiss it as valid.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:45 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

So then any religious stupidity shouldn't be associated
with it.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:45 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

So then any religious stupidity shouldn't be associated
with it.

Another of your fallacies of distraction. The only one that has raised
the issue wrt religion in these threads is you.

[DanielSan]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:45 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

So then any religious stupidity shouldn't be associated
with it.

Another of your fallacies of distraction. The only one that has raised
the issue wrt religion in these threads is you.

No. That's the only reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. All
the other reasons are utter and pure hogwash. If we're concentrating
ONLY on the legal aspect of marriage, then it's unconstitutional to deny
marriage to same sex couples. Evidence? The 9th and 14th Amendments.

[Larry Hewitt]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

One piece my ass
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

And unfortunately both of you are wrong, because common law and foreign
marriages do not require a license.

Larry

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Bullshit cite---provides no clue as to whether it was
the decison apriori, Obiter dicta, or some obscure shit
that you made up.

ROTFLMHO. I have no need to "make stuff up" sonny. You're proven
yourself so clueless time-and-again one need only present the facts
...which is why you "snip" them as if they don't exist...something
you've done again-and-again in these threads.
If you actually read it you'll note it's a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf
The only "Bullsh**" is your failed attempt to dismiss it as valid.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:23:20 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

One piece my ass
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

And unfortunately both of you are wrong, because common law and foreign
marriages do not require a license.

That's exactly true

It was a general sense I was referring to, not legal
specific.

My bad.

[Info Junkie]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:23:20 -0400, Larry Hewitt

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
The issue isn't "rights of marriage", but the
application of equal application of the law.

Actually it is...one piece of evidence is shown below in the words of
the court.

One piece my ass
Marriage is a function of state law. you don't get
legally married unless the state issues you a license.

Which is what I've been posting all along.

And unfortunately both of you are wrong, because common law and foreign
marriages do not require a license.

I thanked you for that reminder in another post.

Post by Larry Hewitt

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Bullshit cite---provides no clue as to whether it was
the decison apriori, Obiter dicta, or some obscure shit
that you made up.

ROTFLMHO. I have no need to "make stuff up" sonny. You're proven
yourself so clueless time-and-again one need only present the facts
...which is why you "snip" them as if they don't exist...something
you've done again-and-again in these threads.
If you actually read it you'll note it's a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf
The only "Bullsh**" is your failed attempt to dismiss it as valid.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Until Gideon v Wainwright, the due process clause never
covered legal representation in state courts either

Whir...spin....another of your fallacies of distraction. None of which
refutes anything I posted.

Used to spank you about the application of the due
process clause and it's application to enforcing equal
protection under the law.

It's why the marriage issue is under threat.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:47:16 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Until Gideon v Wainwright, the due process clause never
covered legal representation in state courts either

Whir...spin....another of your fallacies of distraction. None of which
refutes anything I posted.

Used to spank you about the application of the due
process clause and it's application to enforcing equal
protection under the law.

You're free to remain as delusional about marriage issues and the law
as you are in your belief you've "spanked" me sonny...which is why
you've "snipped" every piece of evidence I posted that proves you're
cluelessness.

Post by N***@Click.com
It's why the marriage issue is under threat.

The "marriage issue is under threat" by those attempting to usurp the
state/societal customs/traditions by re-defining what marriage is not
at the ballot box where it belongs, but by judicial legislative fiats.
(posted elsewhere in multiple threads)
'In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established societal norms
(historical US customs and traditions) the (homosexual) proponents
instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
narrowing (or limiting) the discussion to individual topics such as
re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and try to cite their various
"interpretations" of what one or two court cases have ruled.

When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial marriages.
These diversions are to merely avoid the most glaring legal issue that
same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore, and which I've previously
pointed out:

'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or
stealth, to attempt and change the very foundations that make up the
majority of "society", based on a "feeling" that this group should be
placed on the same level in society, not on genetic or physical
differences, but on their "feelings", (they) may see a backlash
against this (hypocrisy).' This is evident by the majority of voters
that have demanded their State Constitutions (now 27 of them) be
amended to reflect marriage be defined between "one man and one
woman".

By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, not directly (they'd lose
as shown by the (now 27) states that have voted on a state
constitutional ban against homosexuals marrying), but by challenging
the laws-on-the-books through the court system in an attempt to have
their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide minority status at the
same level as blacks and/or women based on Article XIV.'

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:48 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Used to spank you about the application of the due
process clause and it's application to enforcing equal
protection under the law.

You're free to remain as delusional about marriage issues and the law
as you are in your belief you've "spanked" me sonny...

Everyone knows you're a whipped dog because you keep
whining and citing non-existent "evidence", arguing
belief instead of fact, and generaly being a fuckwit.

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:48 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by N***@Click.com
Used to spank you about the application of the due
process clause and it's application to enforcing equal
protection under the law.

You're free to remain as delusional about marriage issues and the law
as you are in your belief you've "spanked" me sonny...

Everyone knows you're a whipped dog because you keep
whining and citing non-existent "evidence", arguing
belief instead of fact, and generaly being a fuckwit.

ROTFLMHO. Just because YOU put "X-No-Archive: yes" in each of your
posts in the hopes that no one will later show your foolish previous
(and false) assertions, doesn't mean the evidence doesn exist.

[Lord Calvert]

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

The crux of the question is "Who defines consensual marriage? The
individuals or big-government?" Loving very clearly, unanimously and
unambiguously stated what big-government's proper role in marriage is.
That role is "none." The California Supreme Court's decision is
consistent with that concept...people determine what is a marriage,
not the State.

If you want a society where the state tightly regulates marriage, move
to Iran or North Korea. Big-government control like that has no place
in the US.


Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography

[Info Junkie]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection. This issue has been discussed
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.

Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals. The basic
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman. The
benefit is a dramatic increase in the probability of additional
children being added to the community. This would in turn dramatically
increase the chance that the community would be self-sustaining, i.e.
more citizens via marriages, more schools, more businesss, more
families,...more children ...etc. etc..

Over time, society reciprecated by recognizing these benefits to
society, hence encouraging citizens to continue one-man-one-woman
marriage by the creation of marriage benefits. This allowed
communities to continue to grow and propser.

This does not imply that children is a requirement of marraige, as
that's just sophistry. The percentage of married heterosexuals being
irreversibly infertile is infinitestiminally small when compared to
the number of married heterosexuals having multiple children
dramtically raising the chances for future societal benefits. OTOH,
homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society.

"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/

Post by Lord Calvert
The crux of the question is "Who defines consensual marriage? The
individuals or big-government?"

Wrong question. It should be "Who defines what the criteria for
society to bestow benefits upon"? In this case it's marriage benefits
for which society decides whom may qualify that benefits society,
i.e., not "individuals", not "big-government".

Post by Lord Calvert
Loving very clearly, unanimously and
unambiguously stated what big-government's proper role in marriage is.

False. The basic premise in an interracial marriage such as Loving v.
Virginia remained one-man-one-woman. Society could not withhold
benefits it awarded to non-interacial marriages that meet the same
criteria used to benefit society but did not include immutablity
factors. Hence the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia Due Process, not
Equal Protection had been violated.

Post by Lord Calvert
That role is "none." The California Supreme Court's decision is
consistent with that concept...people determine what is a marriage,
not the State.

If what you claim were true, then how did the Court throw out Prop 22?
The Court does not represent either the State not the people....that
remains the job of the Legislative and the Executive branches.

It's becoming clear you don't understand what the issue involves, so
you're throwing out the old standard "talking-points";

Loving v.s Virginia case dealt with Due Process clause. Your trying to
compare that case with the CA SC case. The CA SC case involves the
Equal Protection clause. Comparing a homosexual marriage from the CA
SC case to the Loving v. Virginia case is an apples-versus-oranges
fallacious argument.

In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
Equal Protection clause:
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
meet ALL of the following criteria:

The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination. These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

Post by Lord Calvert
If you want a society where the state tightly regulates marriage, move
to Iran or North Korea. Big-government control like that has no place
in the US.

Why should I move? You're the one wanting to ram the feelings of a few
selfish individuals down the throats of all citizens by demanding the
traditions of US society's handling of marriages for 200+ years,
including the bestowing of marriages benefits said selfish individuals
be changed via judicial fiat.

Try going to "Iran or North Korea" and see what they'll give you when
you insist on homosexuals marrying... ROTFLMHO

ITM, if homosexuals wish to marry...what they do in the privacy of
their own homes...I don't care. However, if homosexuals wish to marry
and demand that society not only accept THEIR definition (or a version
via judicial fiat) of marriage AND demand full access to marriage
benefits society has said they do not qualify for...there is a
problem. No matter how you want to slice-n-dice it, there is no
"right" to marriage benefits nor any "right" that society be forced
accept homosexual marriages as "normal".

(provided previously in other threads)
'In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established societal norms
(historical US customs and traditions) the (homosexual) proponents
instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
narrowing (or limiting) the discussion to individual topics such as
re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and try to cite their various
"interpretations" of what one or two court cases have ruled.

When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial marriages.
These diversions are to merely avoid the most glaring legal issue that
same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore, and which I've previously
pointed out:

'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or
stealth, to attempt and change the very foundations that make up the
majority of "society", based on a "feeling" that this group should be
placed on the same level in society, not on genetic or physical
differences, but on their "feelings", (they) may see a backlash
against this (hypocrisy).' This is evident by the majority of voters
that have demanded their State Constitutions (now 27 of them) be
amended to reflect marriage be defined between "one man and one
woman".

By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, not directly (they'd lose
as shown by the (now 27) states that have voted on a state
constitutional ban against homosexuals marrying), but by challenging
the laws-on-the-books through the court system in an attempt to have
their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide minority status at the
same level as blacks and/or women based on Article XIV.'

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely
because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the
Equal Protection Clause"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Post by Info Junkie
This does not imply that children is a requirement of marraige, as
that's just sophistry. The percentage of married heterosexuals being
irreversibly infertile is infinitestiminally small when compared to
the number of married heterosexuals having multiple children
dramtically raising the chances for future societal benefits. OTOH,
homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society.
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

This link doesn't say "ALL". It says "at least one".

Post by Info Junkie
Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination. These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

The California case was based on the California constitution, so federal
cases which deal with the US Constitution wouldn't have any precedential
value. Also, beginning on page 96 of the opinion, the California court
discusses immutability.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Josh Rosenbluth

[Info Junkie]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:02:32 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely
because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the
Equal Protection Clause"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Thanks Mr Rosenbluth, I did forget that piece. IAW the law, unlike
homosexuality race is immutable.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Info Junkie
This does not imply that children is a requirement of marraige, as
that's just sophistry. The percentage of married heterosexuals being
irreversibly infertile is infinitestiminally small when compared to
the number of married heterosexuals having multiple children
dramtically raising the chances for future societal benefits. OTOH,
homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society.
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

This link doesn't say "ALL". It says "at least one".

Thank you for pointing out my typing error Mr Rosenbluth. The correct
links may be seen at:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Info Junkie
Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination. These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

The California case was based on the California constitution, so federal
cases which deal with the US Constitution wouldn't have any precedential
value. Also, beginning on page 96 of the opinion, the California court
discusses immutability.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Thank you for the link and page Mr Rosenbluth. Even you've admitted
that 'the court danced around the immutability issue'.

While I agree these are only California judges dealing only with the
California constitution, IMHO, they remain part of the judicial
system, and must still take an oath of office....of which MO is they
violated.

For the first time in ANY state/federal case, such an application of
strict scrutiny may trigger an appeal to the USSC (eventually)
...probably after whatever ramifications occur post-November
referendum wrt amending California's constitution.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:51 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Thanks Mr Rosenbluth, I did forget that piece. IAW the law, unlike
homosexuality race is immutable.

Homosexuality is genetic, stupid.

Homosexual behavior MAY be elective.

[DanielSan]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:51 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Thanks Mr Rosenbluth, I did forget that piece. IAW the law, unlike
homosexuality race is immutable.

Homosexuality is genetic, stupid.
Homosexual behavior MAY be elective.

Homosexual behavior AND heterosexual behavior are elective. You don't
have to have sex. You can remain celibate.

[Phlip]

Post by DanielSan
Homosexual behavior AND heterosexual behavior are elective. You don't
have to have sex. You can remain celibate.

"We may someday come to regard celibacy to be as healthy as malnutrition" --
Dr Alex Comfort (approximately)

That C-word sure works out great for the Catholic Clergy, huh?

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:51 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Thanks Mr Rosenbluth, I did forget that piece. IAW the law, unlike
homosexuality race is immutable.

Homosexuality is genetic, stupid.

You've forgotten to provide your credible scentific evidence that a
"gay gene" has been discovered clown. Faliure to provide such evidence
show what a troll you continue to be...

Post by N***@Click.com
Homosexual behavior MAY be elective.

ROTFLMHO.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Info Junkie
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:02:32 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Info Junkie
In a variety of cases the USSC previously set the criteria needed to
apply "strict scrutiny" to a case involving discrimination under the
"To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must
The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
The group shares a history of discrimination.
The group is politically impotent.
The group is a discrete and insular minority."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class

This link doesn't say "ALL".  It says "at least one".

Thank you for pointing out my typing error Mr Rosenbluth. The correct
links may be seen at:http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-class directly
contradicts http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Suspect-classification.
Wikipedia is no tiebreaker.

You need to cite some SCOTUS cases.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Notice to meet said crietria for strict scrutiny, "a group MUST meet
ALL of the following criteria" (emphasis mine).  Out of ALL of those
items, four of seven Justices of the California court ignored all but
one...discrimination.  These members did not follow legal precedent
such as Baker v Nelson nor the criteria set down for such cases, but
based their ruling on their personal biased opinions, ergo, IMNSHO,
violated their oath of office.

The California case was based on the California constitution, so federal
cases which deal with the US Constitution wouldn't have any precedential
value.  Also, beginning on page 96 of the opinion, the California court
discusses immutability.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Thank you for the link and page Mr Rosenbluth. Even you've admitted
that 'the court danced around the immutability issue'.
While I agree these are only California judges dealing only with the
California constitution, IMHO, they remain part of the judicial
system, and must still take an oath of office....of which MO is they
violated.
For the first time in ANY state/federal case, such an application of
strict scrutiny may trigger an appeal to the USSC (eventually)

On what basis?

Josh Rosenbluth

[thomas p.]

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

This issue has been discussed

Post by Info Junkie
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.
Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals.

No, a civil right is something an individual possesses.

The basic

Post by Info Junkie
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman.

The basic premise is that marriage is a civil right possessed by all. It
says nothing about children or about traditional marriage.

snip

[Info Junkie]

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

Amendment XIV covers BOTH Equal Protection AND Due Process clauses.

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
This issue has been discussed
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.
Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals.

No, a civil right is something an individual possesses.

Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"

Civil rights:
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "
http://dictionary.reference.com

Notice these "rights" were "established", not "possessed" by
individuals. IOW, Congress claimed recognition of additional personal
liberties and based those liberties on various criteria including
citizenship. Unlike inalienable rights, civil rights are liberties
that are "established" by law...and may be removed by law.

Wrt marriage, even Mr Rosenbluth has admitted:
"It is true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process
right, that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to
all people." Message-ID:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/browse_thread/thread/2f734b299c90aad7/486d5a47e08b9e47?hl=en&lnk=st&q=&utoken=1ExiXDgAAAAI0FkJ-cy52F8wblxuFbNqnQQcdfRt1GxMLHKsTHCfZ5ue2wn414aeaSNMXCOojSEEWStxtXpIptPq2Ripprks

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
The basic
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman.

The basic premise is that marriage is a civil right possessed by all. It
says nothing about children or about traditional marriage.

False. There are restrictions on marriage just as their are
restrictions on fishing. You toss out that it "says nothing about
children or about traditional marriage", while true on its face...is
mere sophistry. Marriage doesn't say anything about immutabilities, or
sterility or either. OTOH, a fishing license doesn't claim which
fish you can catch (not the same as keeping them).

Like it or not, civil issues deal with society, and in...
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/

Another good example is the issue wrt DOMA:
"Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act,
which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional
because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing
unions.

The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival
of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by
children's biological parents' Madsen wrote."
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341MAJ.pdf

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:55 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.
It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

Amendment XIV covers BOTH Equal Protection AND Due Process clauses.

Cases brought under, and issued certiorari can, (and
are) be either.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:55 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "

Making it difficult to argue exclusion based on sexual
preference.

Equal protection and due process, and equal application
of the law.......

No religious stupidity there.......

[Info Junkie]

Post by N***@Click.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:55:55 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "

Making it difficult to argue exclusion based on sexual
preference.

Not at all...by your own words, "sexual preference", no more nor less
than the "preference" of nudists, pedophiles and people that wear
outlandish clothing.

Post by N***@Click.com
Equal protection and due process, and equal application
of the law.......

IF the criteria of the law has been met...of which (at the federal
level) a person's "sexual preference" is irrelevent.

Post by N***@Click.com
No religious stupidity there.......

You're the only one that continues to raise that fallacy.

[thomas p.]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

Amendment XIV covers BOTH Equal Protection AND Due Process clauses.

Yes, thank you for admitting your error.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
This issue has been discussed
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.
Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals.

No, a civil right is something an individual possesses.

Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "
http://dictionary.reference.com
Notice these "rights" were "established", not "possessed" by
individuals. IOW, Congress claimed recognition of additional personal
liberties and based those liberties on various criteria including
citizenship. Unlike inalienable rights, civil rights are liberties
that are "established" by law...and may be removed by law.

Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law. There is nothing in the Constitution that backs up your
claim that civil rights are rights deemed as beneficial to the promotion of
society.

Post by Info Junkie
"It is true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process
right, that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to

Yes, it can deny legal marriage to all. That has nothing to do with denying
it to homosexuals or to mixed racial couples.

Post by Info Junkie
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/browse_thread/thread/2f734b299c90aad7/486d5a47e08b9e47?hl=en&lnk=st&q=&utoken=1ExiXDgAAAAI0FkJ-cy52F8wblxuFbNqnQQcdfRt1GxMLHKsTHCfZ5ue2wn414aeaSNMXCOojSEEWStxtXpIptPq2Ripprks

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
The basic
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman.

The basic premise is that marriage is a civil right possessed by all. It
says nothing about children or about traditional marriage.

False. There are restrictions on marriage just as their are
restrictions on fishing. You toss out that it "says nothing about
children or about traditional marriage", while true on its face...is
mere sophistry.

Reality is a sophistry? Who knew?

Marriage doesn't say anything about immutabilities, or

Post by Info Junkie
sterility or either. OTOH, a fishing license doesn't claim which
fish you can catch (not the same as keeping them).

In the meantime there is no requirement to have children or to even be able
to have children in order to be married.

Post by Info Junkie
Like it or not, civil issues deal with society, and in...
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."

Not once does a Court decision require the ability or the intention have
children. You are lying.

Post by Info Junkie
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
"Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act,
which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional
because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing
unions.
The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival
of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by
children's biological parents' Madsen wrote."
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341MAJ.pdf

We will just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says to any
challenge. Such a law, it would seem, would have to forbid marriage to
anyone not capable of having children in order to not violate the equal
protection law, but we will just have to wait for a possible (almost
inevitable) challenge.

[Peter Franks]

Post by thomas p.
Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law.

No, no right is subject to 'removal' by law; rights reign supreme.

Laws are created to protect (or secure) rights, not remove them.

[N***@Click.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:10:53 -0700, Peter Franks

Post by Peter Franks

Post by thomas p.
Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law.

No, no right is subject to 'removal' by law; rights reign supreme.

No, no---Natural, or "god-given" rights are not subject
to removal

Your "right" to vote is not a natural right, nor is
marriage a specific "natural right"---

[thomas p.]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by thomas p.
Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law.

No, no right is subject to 'removal' by law; rights reign supreme.
Laws are created to protect (or secure) rights, not remove them.

Laws are made by men for their purposes. Unfortunately men often work
against the interests of society and make laws that suppress individual
freedom, but those laws are still laws.

[Info Junkie]

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

Amendment XIV covers BOTH Equal Protection AND Due Process clauses.

Yes, thank you for admitting your error.

Error? If true, you'll have no problem showing that I've ever claimed
Amendment XIV DOESN'T cover both the Equal Protection and Due Process
clauses, won't you? I did admit to forgetting the Loving v. Virginia
case covered both and thanked Mr Rosenbluth for his reminder.

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
This issue has been discussed
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.
Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals.

No, a civil right is something an individual possesses.

Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "
http://dictionary.reference.com
Notice these "rights" were "established", not "possessed" by
individuals. IOW, Congress claimed recognition of additional personal
liberties and based those liberties on various criteria including
citizenship. Unlike inalienable rights, civil rights are liberties
that are "established" by law...and may be removed by law.

Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law.

Really? The please explain how abortion laws became a "right" based on
"penumbras" and "emanations" without an constitutional amendment,
won't you?

Post by thomas p.
There is nothing in the Constitution that backs up your
claim that civil rights are rights deemed as beneficial to the promotion of
society.

Sure there is...also known as Amendment X....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

...unless of course you can prove that amendment has been amended to
be null and void.

ITM, since US custom and tradition have always deemed marriage
between one-man-one-woman, society continues to make such decisions
for society. It doesn't need to make a "compelling reason" to deny a
civil right (that doesn't violate federal law), but individuals/groups
need a "compelling reason" to require society to bestow societal
benefits upon excluded individuals/groups

Wrt society and marriage laws:
1. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what does the majority of
society gain?

IOW, how and to what extent and by what means will the redefining of
marriage be beneficial to the majority of society?

2. If the status of marriage remains the current status quo, i.e.,
'one man and one woman', to what extent and by what means will the
majority of society suffer?

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
"It is true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process
right, that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to

Yes, it can deny legal marriage to all.

While techinically it could do so...to what advantage?

Post by thomas p.
That has nothing to do with denying
it to homosexuals or to mixed racial couples.

Sure it does. Society (i.e. state) can reject marriages (and said
benefits) between adults and children, children and children, people
and animals. They can also reject marriages between homosexuals.
This is evidenced by that fact that (currently):

"Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in at least
42 states...Currently, 27 states have added defense of marriage
amendments to their constitutions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state#State-by-state_listing

While the bias' of interracial marriages was removed in Loving v.
Virginia, the societal premise of marriage remained the same, i.e.
"that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,
essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the
well-being of children by encouraging families where children are
reared in homes headed by children's biological parents'".

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/browse_thread/thread/2f734b299c90aad7/486d5a47e08b9e47?hl=en&lnk=st&q=&utoken=1ExiXDgAAAAI0FkJ-cy52F8wblxuFbNqnQQcdfRt1GxMLHKsTHCfZ5ue2wn414aeaSNMXCOojSEEWStxtXpIptPq2Ripprks

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
The basic
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman.

The basic premise is that marriage is a civil right possessed by all. It
says nothing about children or about traditional marriage.

False. There are restrictions on marriage just as their are
restrictions on fishing. You toss out that it "says nothing about
children or about traditional marriage", while true on its face...is
mere sophistry.

Reality is a sophistry? Who knew?

Where did I post that "reality was sophistry"?

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
Marriage doesn't say anything about immutabilities, or
sterility or either. OTOH, a fishing license doesn't claim which
fish you can catch (not the same as keeping them).

In the meantime there is no requirement to have children or to even be able
to have children in order to be married.

You've previously attempted this little gambit by implyng some sort of
"requirement...to have children in order to be married." Other than
you, no one else in these threads has claimed there was such a
requirement....which is why bringing it as if anyone made such a claim
"...is mere sophistry."

Let's see how else your comment may be applied:
"There is no requirement to..."
1. Fish - before a fishing license is issued.
2. Hunt - before a hunting license is issued.
3. Vote - before a voter registration card is issued.
4. Protest - before a permit is issued.
5. Travel - before a passport is issued.

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
Like it or not, civil issues deal with society, and in...
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."

Not once does a Court decision require the ability or the intention have
children. You are lying.

Hmmm: I post a URL showing "Nearly all United States Supreme Court
decisions....expressly link to fundamental rights of procreation,
childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing." Instead of posting evidence
that refutes mine, you've somehow interpreted it to ME "lying"?
ROTFLMHO.

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
"Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act,
which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional
because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing
unions.
The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival
of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by
children's biological parents' Madsen wrote."
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341MAJ.pdf

We will just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says to any
challenge.

Yep...if that ever comes about...(nothing pending that I'm aware of).

Post by thomas p.
Such a law, it would seem, would have to forbid marriage to
anyone not capable of having children in order to not violate the equal
protection law, but we will just have to wait for a possible (almost
inevitable) challenge.

Not at all. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear: It
"bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to
do the same." http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm

The issues you and others continue to claim falls within the realm of
alleged individual "rights". There's no inidivual "right" to marriage
benefits ...nor federally recognized "equal protection" for ANY
couple. In fact, no "couple" is recognized BEFORE the state has
recognized two people as legally married based upon the criteria
society (i.e, the state) has set down. (IIRC, MA and CA are the
exceptions)

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Info Junkie
While the bias' of interracial marriages was removed in Loving v.
Virginia, the societal premise of marriage remained the same, i.e.
"that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,
essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the
well-being of children by encouraging families where children are
reared in homes headed by children's biological parents'".

Hypothetical: a state does not permit an elderly couple to get a
marriage license because it is known they cannot have children. The
couple sues claiming they have a federal constitutional right to the
marriage license. How should the case be decided?

Post by Info Junkie
In fact, no "couple" is recognized BEFORE the state has
recognized two people as legally married based upon the criteria
society (i.e, the state) has set down. (IIRC, MA and CA are the
exceptions)

These states are not exceptions, in that they like the federal
government, do not recognize couples. Theses states (and you can add in
Connecticut) all concluded the *individual* has an equal protection
right under their respective state constitutions to marry another
individual of the same sex.

Josh Rosenbluth

[thomas p.]

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert

Post by Lord Calvert

Post by Info Junkie
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....

Well there were the nine Justices who voted as such in Loving v.
Virginia in 1967. Apparently you missed that one.

Evidently what "you missed" is the difference between the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Loving v.s Virginia was
about Due Process, not Equal Protection.

It was about the 14'th amendment, therefore it was about equal protection.
It is clearly stated in the decision.

Amendment XIV covers BOTH Equal Protection AND Due Process clauses.

Yes, thank you for admitting your error.

Error? If true, you'll have no problem showing that I've ever claimed
Amendment XIV DOESN'T cover both the Equal Protection and Due Process
clauses, won't you? I did admit to forgetting the Loving v. Virginia
case covered both and thanked Mr Rosenbluth for his reminder.

You said the Virginia vs Loving decision was not about equal protection. It
was. Equal protection cannot be denied without due process.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.

Post by Info Junkie
This issue has been discussed
ad nauseum in a multitude of threads in this forum. You, like many
others, have tried to present such an apples-vs-oranges
argument....and you've failed.
Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals.

No, a civil right is something an individual possesses.

Oh my. An "inalienable" right is what "an individual possesses"
"1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts,
esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. "
http://dictionary.reference.com
Notice these "rights" were "established", not "possessed" by
individuals. IOW, Congress claimed recognition of additional personal
liberties and based those liberties on various criteria including
citizenship. Unlike inalienable rights, civil rights are liberties
that are "established" by law...and may be removed by law.

Only by admendment of the Constitution. In that sense all rights may be
removed by law.

Really? The please explain how abortion laws became a "right" based on
"penumbras" and "emanations" without an constitutional amendment,
won't you?

Explain what confirming a right has to do with removing a right.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by thomas p.
There is nothing in the Constitution that backs up your
claim that civil rights are rights deemed as beneficial to the promotion of
society.

Sure there is...also known as Amendment X....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
...unless of course you can prove that amendment has been amended to
be null and void.

It says nothing about civil rigthts being rights deemed as beneficial to
society.


snip of more of the same.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:58:38 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Over time, society reciprecated by recognizing these benefits to
society

by your own admission, Society recognizes that CHANGE
is necessary and good

And that's not what Conservatism tries to promote, it
always attempts to deter it

I keep explaining that to you.

[N***@Click.com]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:58:38 -0500, Info Junkie

Post by Info Junkie
Wrong question. It should be "Who defines what the criteria for
society to bestow benefits upon"?

Well, we let fundamentalist assholes do that with
prohibition----see where it got us?

So now they're doing it with a civil right........

Think the outcome will be different?

[Curly Surmudgeon]

Post by Info Junkie
"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance
:|that homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and
:|wealth to the survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject
:|the notion of gay marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you
don't personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this thread
implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage benefits to
homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to marry under CA
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on this
issue that doesn't exist.
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior is determined
by an individual on what's best...for the individual.
b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is determined on
what's best...for society. (accomplished through state/federal law)
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right. While the CA SC may have
perverted the definition of marriage for CA homosexuals

Do you mean like crazymotherfucker christers (yeah, I know that's
redundant) defining a zygote and fetus as an "unborn child"?

Post by Info Junkie
(ignoring stare
decsis wrt strict scrutiny guidelines), there remains the matters of
society "awarding" benefits to homosexuals married in CA.
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing ot
teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.

I'm ok with that, take special treatment away from hetrosexual married
couples. Doesn't matter which path one takes just as long as everyone is
treated equally as the Constitution demands.

In fact I'd rather abandon "marriage" to the crazymotherfuckers. Let
everyone go down to the county courthouse and file a contract between man
and woman, homosexual, or plural marriages, ain't no big thing as long as
all are treated equally.

In fact my wife and I get remarried on a regular basis. Next time might
be at the courthouse for variety.

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth Amendment
was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme Court has
suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision codifying the
traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause or
any other provision of the United States Constitution....
...The Equal Protection Clause 'is not a license for courts to judge the
wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices.'"
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

So?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Legacy: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access

Post by Info Junkie

Post by buckeye

at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Info Junkie]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:49:04 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance
:|that homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and
:|wealth to the survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject
:|the notion of gay marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you
don't personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this thread
implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage benefits to
homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to marry under CA
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on this
issue that doesn't exist.
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior is determined
by an individual on what's best...for the individual.
b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is determined on
what's best...for society. (accomplished through state/federal law)
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right. While the CA SC may have
perverted the definition of marriage for CA homosexuals

Do you mean like crazymotherfucker christers (yeah, I know that's
redundant) defining a zygote and fetus as an "unborn child"?

You're paranioa is showing again. No one but you and ***@Click.com
are raising that fallacious flag.

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
(ignoring stare
decsis wrt strict scrutiny guidelines), there remains the matters of
society "awarding" benefits to homosexuals married in CA.
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing ot
teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.

I'm ok with that, take special treatment away from hetrosexual married
couples. Doesn't matter which path one takes just as long as everyone is
treated equally as the Constitution demands.

Ah, so lower everyone one else tomake others "feel" better"? ROTFLMHO

Legally, everyone, including homosexual, are "treated equally as the
Constitution demands."

Post by Curly Surmudgeon
In fact I'd rather abandon "marriage" to the crazymotherfuckers. Let
everyone go down to the county courthouse and file a contract between man
and woman, homosexual, or plural marriages, ain't no big thing as long as
all are treated equally.

Oh course you would.....by lowering another societal standard so a few
selfish individuals "feel" better about themselves...

Post by Curly Surmudgeon
In fact my wife and I get remarried on a regular basis. Next time might
be at the courthouse for variety.

You're call...IF you're a heterosexual.

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth Amendment
was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme Court has
suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision codifying the
traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause or
any other provision of the United States Constitution....
...The Equal Protection Clause 'is not a license for courts to judge the
wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices.'"
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

So?

Society may make their decision wrt what defines marriage by the
ballot box in amending their state's constitution.

Society...not a few vocal selfish individuals, determines what
criteria willl be used to determine the legality of a marriage and the
benefits that will be bestowed upon those that meet that
criteria....not the personal biased opinion of a few Court members.

[Curly Surmudgeon]

Post by Info Junkie
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:49:04 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
"snip"

Post by buckeye

:|All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a
:|chance that homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets
:|and wealth to the survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly
:|reject the notion of gay marriage.

What you strongly reject is equal rights for anyone and everyone you
don't personally approve of

Admittedly not having specifically the article of "prop 8", this thread
implies a voter referendum on whether to bestow marriage benefits to
homosexuals recently having been granted the ability to marry under CA
1. What many reject is pro-homosexual advocates claiming a "right" on
this issue that doesn't exist.
a. Inalienable rights are those where decisions on behavior is
determined by an individual on what's best...for the individual.
b. Civil rights are those where decisions on behavior is determined on
what's best...for society. (accomplished through state/federal law)
2. Marriage is a civil, not an inalienable right. While the CA SC may
have perverted the definition of marriage for CA homosexuals

Do you mean like crazymotherfucker christers (yeah, I know that's
redundant) defining a zygote and fetus as an "unborn child"?

raising that fallacious flag.

You_r_ prejudice is showing again.

It's not a "unborn child" it's a chunk of protoplasm.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
(ignoring stare
decsis wrt strict scrutiny guidelines), there remains the matters of
society "awarding" benefits to homosexuals married in CA.
3. If marriage benefits were "right", there would be no need for the
public to "VOTE" on a "RIGHT" . In spite of the whining and knashing
ot teeth in frustration, there is no "right" to marriage benefits.

I'm ok with that, take special treatment away from hetrosexual married
couples. Doesn't matter which path one takes just as long as everyone is
treated equally as the Constitution demands.

Ah, so lower everyone one else tomake others "feel" better"? ROTFLMHO

How is equal treatment under the law "lower(ing)" anyone?

Conversely I can show that you with to deny a definable group of humans
equal rights.

Post by Info Junkie
Legally, everyone, including homosexual, are "treated equally as the
Constitution demands."

Bullshit, utter, complete bullshit and you know it. "Separate but equal"
was ruled against decades ago.

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Curly Surmudgeon
In fact I'd rather abandon "marriage" to the crazymotherfuckers. Let
everyone go down to the county courthouse and file a contract between man
and woman, homosexual, or plural marriages, ain't no big thing as long as
all are treated equally.

Oh course you would.....by lowering another societal standard so a few
selfish individuals "feel" better about themselves...

A level playing field is lower? You certainly aren't arguing from a
higher plain. In fact yours is the same excuses used to keep niggers
down, that dog don't hunt...

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Curly Surmudgeon
In fact my wife and I get remarried on a regular basis. Next time might
be at the courthouse for variety.

You're call...IF you're a heterosexual.

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie
"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme Court
has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution....
...The Equal Protection Clause 'is not a license for courts to judge
the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices.'"
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

So?

Society may make their decision wrt what defines marriage by the ballot
box in amending their state's constitution.

State Constitution cannot trump the Bill of Rights. Equal Rights are a
fact, live with it. You cannot enslave or deny others the same rights
that you or I enjoy.

Post by Info Junkie
Society...not a few vocal selfish individuals, determines what criteria
willl be used to determine the legality of a marriage and the benefits
that will be bestowed upon those that meet that criteria....not the
personal biased opinion of a few Court members.

Nope, you are wrong. The Constitution and Bill of Rights trumps any
bigotry that you crazymotherfuckers try to legislate suppressing the
rights of others.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access

Post by Info Junkie

Post by Curly Surmudgeon

Post by Info Junkie

Post by buckeye
at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[buckeye]

:|>
:|>> <snip>
:|>>> Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman. Anything else is not
:|>>> marriage. It might be worthy of protecting and passing acquired assets,
:|>>> but
:|>>> it's not marriage.
:|>>
:|>> It's impossible for homosexuals[1] to "marry"[2] for they cannot
:|>> "consummate"[3]. Nor can they reasonably expect their sexual activity to
:|>> procreate[4]. Theirs is an act for sexual gratification only.
:|<snip>
:|>
:|> All of that can be true, and probably is, but there is still a chance that
:|> homosexuals will wish acquire, protect, and pass assets and wealth to the
:|> survivor. I can respect this even if I strongly reject the notion of gay
:|> marriage.
:|
:|I fully agree they ought to be able to leave their goods to another.
:|There's a means to do so now - a "last will and testament". Want
:|visitation rights? Put your sex partner's name on a list. As to their
:|sexual activities; it's wrong but they can do as they please, only omit
:|my having to support their actions via taxes, insurance, etc. God will
:|deal with them as He will us all for our short comings.

I suggest you read up on the law in this area so you don't make a complete
fool of yourself

If it were as simple as you clims there would be no issue. Since trhere is
a issue it isn't that simple

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[buckeye]

:|> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:16:07 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
:|>
:|>>
:|>>> Prop. 8: Whose "Traditional Marriage" Does It Protect?
:|>>> http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/prop_8_whose_tr.html
:|>>>
:|>>> [excerpt]
:|>>>
:|>>
:|>>It protects _all_ "traditional" marriage by not diluting marriage with
:|>>deviant sexual practices.
:|>
:|> What "deviant sexual practices" Jeffy?
:|
:|Nothing "deviant" in your eyes, Nicklas? You must then be a supporter of
:|NAMBLAL[1], of pedophilia[2], of bestiality[3] of necrophilia[4] and of
:|incest[5] since you *apparently* expressed here you think a guy screwing
:|another guys' rear is not "deviant"[6].
:|

Same old lame bullshit

Hey how about a guy screwing a female's mouth (oral sex) or licking a
pussy? How about a guy screwing a female's butt.

All the aforementioned are pretty standard practices in most "straight"
relationships, marriages, etc.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

[buckeye]

:|<snip>
:|> Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman. Anything else is not
:|> marriage. It might be worthy of protecting and passing acquired assets, but
:|> it's not marriage.
:|
:|It's impossible for homosexuals[1] to "marry"[2] for they cannot
:|"consummate"[3]. Nor can they reasonably expect their sexual activity to
:|procreate[4]. Theirs is an act for sexual gratification only.
:|

Your ignorance appears to be equal that of jeffy.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************