so in the meantime it's alright to continue to persecute gays by denying them the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples?
one man, one vote. On Mar 1, 10:47 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > This is what most thinking conservative libertarians have been saying for > years. It makes sense, so therefore, the militant Gay Agenda rejects this > idea and proposal (as in California) as discriminatory. > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alan Dershowitz wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial titled "To Fix Gay > > Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business." More so than > > commentators from the right, Dershowitz frames his view on the topic > > in terms of church-state separation; unlike libertarian leaning > > discussions Dershowitz maintains that the state does have an interest > > in the secular rights of marriage. Dershowitz proposes that civil- > > unions as a secular replacement for state sanctioned marriage, be > > extended to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Under Dershowitz's > > conception of privatization, couples have a choice as to whether or > > not they wish to be married by a clergy willing to perform a marriage > > ceremony or to exclusively partake of secular/state-sanctioned civil > > unions. Dershowitz writes: > > Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose > > gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall > > of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution > > entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular > > institution under state control. > > > On Mar 1, 6:59 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > VanceAt 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 > > includehomosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals.---hogwash > > ... it's only an insult to religious myth believers whopersecute > > 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 > > 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.---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 > > [email protected] more options, > > visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > > > brinehttp://brineb.blogspot.com/ > > > -- > > > -- > > > 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. > > > > --- > > > 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, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > > -- > > 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. > > > --- > > 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, visithttps://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.
