Why would Government need to 'acknowledge' marriages (or their facsimiles) in the first place?
Group A having the Government stick its nose into the matter to provide advantage is where the 'problem' began.
Regard$,
--MJ
"The real threat to the institution of marriage is not homosexuals wanting heterosexuals to recognize their same-sex marriages, it is Christians standing in a church and saying 'for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part' and then getting divorced a few years later," -- Laurence Vance
At 05:49 PM 2/27/2013, you wrote:
How about this ... make all unions that the Gov't acknowledges, civil unions with all the same rights, not something like 60% and then if some flying spaghetti monster wants to bless your union, call in marriage ... but it's not a legal thing, only a religious thing ... not recognized by the state!!!--
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@ges mail.com> wrote:
- 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.
--
brine
http://brineb.blogspot.com/
--
--
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.
--
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.
