Those wanting to PROTECT marriage (whatever that means) are BEST served by working to extricate the issue FROM Government. --- Under DOMA, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by state law.
On Jun 19, 9:41 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Marriage which has nothing to do with Government AND Government should have > NOTHING to do with marriage. > Group A wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on > everyone. > Group B wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on > everyone. > Presumably, Groups C, D, E ... are waiting in the wings to affirm THEIR ideas > and receive advantages. > Where is the advocate for more rights and privileges? > This is no different than EVERYTHING else Government does (save secure rights > .... which it seldom if ever does). > In the end ... the COURT will mandate for OTHER Groups to receive advantages, > Those wanting to PROTECT marriage (whatever that means) are BEST served by > working to extricate the issue FROM Government. > Regard$, > --MJ > "By what right do men exercise power over each other?" -- Auberon HerbertAt > 10:33 AM 6/19/2012, you wrote:It says tons that you would advocate for more > rights and privileges for those because of their behavior, thereby showing > your own discrimination. Then problem solved Plain Ol. There is no religion > in Western or Eastern Culture, that acknowledges anything other than what the > definition of marriage is today. Governments should not be in the marriage > business, but only to acknowledge what marriage is. Again, I am opposed to > the redefinition of marriage. You, on the other hand, are a secularist, who > wishes to see history revised. Not gonna happen.,,,,, > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote:I agree that government has no business in marriage.---then they should > have no say in who gets marriedthe definition of marriage will not bechanged > based upon one's sexual behavior.---it has already changed. > Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriageDefinition of MARRIAGE1a > (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex ashusband or > wife in a consensual and contractual relationshiprecognized by law (2) : the > state of being united to a person of thesame sex in a relationship like that > of a traditional marriage.I predict that this whole movement will comeback to > hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections.Those States > who have approved and allowed for the redefinition ofmarriagewill eventually > change and strike these laws, as I think you will seethemilitary reverse it's > recent determination to allow openly Gay men andwomen in the service.---a > pipe dreamonly the religious persecute gays.On Jun 19, 3:35 am, Keith In > Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:> I agree that government has no > business in marriage.>> As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can > marry anyone that he> so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so > chooses. Nothing> has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of > North Carolinians,> like Floridians and something like 36 other states' > citizenry,> have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage > will not be> changed based upon one's sexual behavior.>> Plain Ol', you can > try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by> the militant Gay > Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement> to revise American > history, is not about discrimination. It's not> about equal rights. This > movement/agenda is about secularists such as> yourself attempting to change > the very morality of, and the fabric of our> Nation. To change the > definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian> moral tenets that our > Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an> attempt to redefine the term > marriage.>> Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal > rights or> discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State> acknowledges > homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving> them the same > status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a> class of people, > (which it doesn't; again we have established that there> is no class of > people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and> only can be > distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) then> this has > been accomplished in a number of States, to include California,> New York, > New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil> Unions have > been allowed in these States for a number of years. The> militant Gay > Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not> been satisfied > with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No,> there was no happy > medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was> acceptable; the only > purpose of which was to shove what many Americans> believe to be an immoral > lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial> throats.>> It's not going > to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come> back to hurt the > Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections.> Those States who have > approved and allowed for the redefinition of marriage> will eventually change > and strike these laws, as I think you will see the> military reverse it's > recent determination to allow openly Gay men and> women in the service.>> On > Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote:>>>>>>>> > Plainol... Any man can marry any > woman... It applies very equally to> > gays.>> > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, > plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:> > > homosexuals are still > guaranteed those same> > > identical rights that you and I> > > ---> > > not > true> > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for > starters>> > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote:>> > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted > to> > maintain> > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still > guaranteed those> > same> > > > identical rights that you and I have. > Nothing's changed, other than> > North> > > > Carolina chose not to grant a > certain group of people more rights than> > I> > > > have, or that you have, > because of their behavior.>> > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, > plainolamerican> > > > <[email protected]>wrote:>> > > > > North > Carolina did nothing that was> > > > > discriminatory toward a class of > people. This was not an action> > > > > against a> > > > > religious group, > or a class of people such as blacks.> > > > > ---> > > > > homosexuals are > guaranteed the same protection as the religious and> > > > > the blacks>> > > > > > This was a> > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the > majority of North> > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their > beliefs.> > > > > ---> > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no > effects on the courts> > > > > decisions>> > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith > In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > > > Well said Mark.>> > > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
