At 04:24 PM 2/17/2004 -0800 Chad Cooper wrote:
>
>When I replace "Gay" and "Homosexual" with Interracial, replace "sex" with
>"race", and "heterosexual" as "same-race"..
Your cheap-shot attack kind of falls apart when it starts producing
sentences like:
"By definition, interracial unions are
When I replace "Gay" and "Homosexual" with Interracial, replace "sex" with
"race", and "heterosexual" as "same-race"..
>>
Chad's Modified text example below
>>
As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in
favor of the "Fe
- Original Message -
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Federal Marraige Amendment
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> >Are w
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Are we going to recognise marriages made in (FREX) France if France
legalises Gay Marriage? The courts will not allow discrimination in
that regard and France WILL retaliate.
How about shipboard weddings? Are those legally recognised? (Law Of
The Sea?)
I really don't see an
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Federal Marraige Amendment
> At 11:46 AM 2/16/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
>
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 02:47 PM 2/16/2004, you wrote:
>
>
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> > > First, the question is: "Should marriage be redefined to include
> >homosexual
> > > unions as well as heterosexual unions?" And indeed, given the
cur
At 02:47 PM 2/16/2004, you wrote:
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> First, the question is: "Should marriage be redefined to include
homosexual
> unions as well as heterosexual unions?" And indeed, given the current
> judicial environment, the question can be taken one step furth
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> First, the question is: "Should marriage be redefined to include
homosexual
> unions as well as heterosexual unions?" And indeed, given the current
> judicial environment, the question can be taken one step further "Does our
> civilization have a
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in
> favor of the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This is despite the fact, as
> noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay
> marriage is this immine
At 11:46 AM 2/16/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
>It also strikes me as odd for the US Constitution to be delegrating how
>state constitutions
>and laws are to be interpreted. Isn't there supposed to be some firm
>separation between
>state and government powers? This seems to be trying to cross a
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man
and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State,
nor state or Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital status
or the legal incidents thereof b
As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in
favor of the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This is despite the fact, as
noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay
marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages.
Anyhow, for th
12 matches
Mail list logo
