DOMA is unconstitutional.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772
At 11:11 AM 6/19/2012, you wrote:
Those wanting to PROTECT marriage (whatever that means) are BEST--
served by working to extricate the issue FROM Government.
---
Under DOMA, the federal government does not recognize same-sex
marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by
state law.
On Jun 19, 9:41 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> Marriage which has nothing to do with Government AND Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage.
> Group A wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on everyone.
> Group B wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on everyone.
> Presumably, Groups C, D, E ... are waiting in the wings to affirm THEIR ideas and receive advantages.
> Where is the advocate for more rights and privileges?
> This is no different than EVERYTHING else Government does (save secure rights .... which it seldom if ever does).
> In the end ... the COURT will mandate for OTHER Groups to receive advantages,
> Those wanting to PROTECT marriage (whatever that means) are BEST served by working to extricate the issue FROM Government.
> Regard$,
> --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. See http://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 ยป
--
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.
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.
