DOMA is unconstitutional. --- I agree. only the religious persecute homosexuals
On Jun 19, 12:36 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > DOMA is unconstitutional. > Regard$, > --MJ > "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; > Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to > support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident > branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, > commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, November 20, > 1772At 11:11 AM 6/19/2012, you wrote:Those wanting to PROTECT marriage > (whatever that means) are BEST > served by working to extricate the issue FROM Government. > --- > Under DOMA, the federal government does not recognize same-sex > marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by > state law. > On Jun 19, 9:41 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marriage which has nothing to do with Government AND Government should have > > NOTHING to do with marriage. > > Group A wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on > > everyone. > > Group B wants GOVERNMENT to FORCE their ideas (and provide advantages) on > > everyone. > > Presumably, Groups C, D, E ... are waiting in the wings to affirm THEIR > > ideas and receive advantages. > > Where is the advocate for more rights and privileges? > > This is no different than EVERYTHING else Government does (save secure > > rights .... which it seldom if ever does). > > In the end ... the COURT will mandate for OTHER Groups to receive > > advantages, > > Those wanting to PROTECT marriage (whatever that means) are BEST served by > > working to extricate the issue FROM Government. > > Regard$, > > --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. > > Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriageDefinitionof > > 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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > * Visit our other community athttp://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.
