Changing the "definition" of the word marriage to include homosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals. --- hogwash ... it's only an insult to religious myth believers who persecute homosexuals.
their days of morality policing is over. On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > MJ: As I've explained several times, the primary issue shouldn't be > whether or not gays have a right to form contractual, significant- > other relationships, and have the same benefits as a heterosexual > spouse. It should only be about prohibition of the use of the WORD > married. Changing the "definition" of the word marriage to include > homosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals. My "NC" > requires that 'pair bonded gays' say that they are "gayged" rather > than married. And requires that they use the word "gaygement" rather > than marriage. Other than for that, no "do-gooders" in the USA have a > right to tell anyone how they choose to live their personal lives; and > any 'law' saying otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL social engineering! — > John A. Armistead, author of the 'New Constitution of the United > States of America'—the updated, strengthened, clarified, and expanded > Big Brother of the original Constitution. > > On Feb 25, 12:49 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What about the OBVIOUS AIVS1C1? > > Regard$, > > --MJ > > "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is > > certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, > > or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." > > --L. SpoonerAt 12:20 PM 2/25/2013, you wrote:Obama Administration Urges > > Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA > > By Sakib Ahmed on February 25th, 2013 (1 hour ago) > > The Obama administration seems to be serious with this whole, new- > > found support of gay marriage. > > On Friday, the administration filed a legal brief with the Justice > > Department that urges the Supreme Court to strike down a key part of > > the Defense of Marriage Act. The brief formally asks the court to > > declare Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional—the part that bars > > recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal benefits > > such as income taxes or federal employee benefits. The brief points > > out that there are more than 1,000 federal statues and programs that > > come into play depending on a person’s marital status. > > The Obama administration notes that some of these couples are legally > > married so targeting them is “a harsh form of discrimination that > > bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society.” > > Moreover, the brief states it violates the constitutional guarantee of > > equal protection. -- -- 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. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
